User talk:Italiotis

Church of the Resurrection
On the contrary. Had you read my user page you would know perfectly well that I'm an Orthodox Christian, a hypodiakon in fact, and had you looked at the article history for Church of the Holy Sepulchre you'd have seen that I have a great interest in it. (The user pages are worth checking in situations like this. Their purpose is to help you get to know other editors so that mistakes like yours are not made.)

It strikes me that you are probably not a native English speaker, and that perhaps some subtleties of the language escape you. "Most Holy Place", capitalized like that, is a proper noun: a specific designation. This is precisely the name of the inner chamber first of the Israelite Tabernacle, and afterward of the innermost chamber of the Temple where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. In an Orthodox church, the corresponding location is the Altar behind the iconostasis, which is why it is closed off with a door and a veil, and only those with a blessing may enter there. (The middle of the church where the people stand for worship corresponds to the Holy Place, the outer chamber of the Temple, and the Narthex corresponds to the Temple's courtyard.)

The popular but archaic Authorized King James Version English translation of Scripture calls the Most Holy Place the "Holy of Holies", which perhaps has a more distinctive sound to it. In any event, the precise designation "Most Holy Place" has never been a specific label for the Tomb but rather, as you correctly point out, "Most Holy Tomb" (among other names).

I believe the focus of the article has become somewhat diluted by other editors confusing the proper noun "Most Holy Place" as a general designation for the holiest shrine in one religion or another, and I think it would be a good idea to clarify the situation by splitting it. The Anastasis should, of course, occupy a place in the more general article that will result. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vergina sun...
Hi, you said, on Talk:Macedonia naming dispute:
 * About Vergina Sun let me remind you that the intermediate agreement between Athens and Skopje signed back in 1995 was clearly stated that the symbol is part of the greek heritage and was attributed to Greece. Skopje agreed on that and the symbol now is oficially and internationaly registered and reserved for the exlusive use of Greece.
 * The Vergina Sun was part of a three points agreement which was: borders, Symbols, Constitution.
 * Thus Skopje agreed to remove the irredentic refferences to their constitution and the use of all ancient symbols including Vergina Sun, with exchange the recognition of the borders of their small state by Greece.
 * If you want to brake the intemediate agreement please go head. Then Greece will no longer be legally binded to respect and accept the current delineation of Skopje s southern borders, wirh whatever implications this may suggest. Italiotis 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh... we had this just the other day elsewhere. Not that it matters for the article, so I'll take this discussion to your user talk instead; hope you don't mind. Almost everything you write above is wrong.
 * The interim accord simply stated that Skopje would stop using the sun on its flag; there's nothing about a confirmation that it belongs exclusively to Greece (whatever that would mean).
 * The alleged "international registration" with the WITO only affects the use of the sun as a trademark; all other uses are totally unaffected. The symbol as such is, in fact, in the public domain, since copyright on it has expired some time during the 2400 years since the death of its inventor.
 * Of course, the registration with the international copyrights authority also can't affect any usage of the sun symbol established before that registration was made (1995).
 * As per the three above points, there is absolutely nothing Greece or anybody else can do if private individuals or organisations keep using the sun as an inofficial symbol of their national identity. If you disagree, perhaps you can cite a few international court cases where Greece has successfully sued Macedonian organistions for using the sun symbol?
 * Needless to say, your suggestion that a breach of the agreement about the symbol (if there ever was one) might contitute grounds for challenging the RoM's territorial integrity is just laughable and displays an alarming degree of ignorance of international law. How about sitting down and reading something?
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. What I would suggest you is to have a depper insight of the intermediate agreement and not a swallow reading as you have done. The agreement as a whole defines the frame under which Skopje are recognised as an entity by Greece. When I referred to the bridging of the agreement I didint referred to the misuse on behalf of some individuals but an oficial bridge on behalf of FYROMs oficials. In this case please have a look to the context of the treaty and even better read it. Italiotis 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise"


 * I did. You are still wrong. But as this has nothing to do with writing the article, I suggest we stop it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree to stop here. Just for your reference

http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/OfficialDocuments/Interim.html

partucularly:

Article 7

2. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the Second Part shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.

Nothing more to say. Please make your own conclusions.

Have a nice day. Italiotis 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise"


 * Emmmm, geia sou Italioti. I see what you mean, but I also understand the difference between "Party of the Second Part" (=FYROM state) and "XYZ 'Macedonian' Organization here and there" (=any bozo with an appetite for founding ethnic associations). Dystyxws, those guys use the darn logo here and there all the time, and their country can't be held legally responsible (although it's far from clear they don't actually endorse it). NikoSilver 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other side, invading or otherwise not respecting border delineations has nothing to do with recognition/non-recognition or Greece's right to veto in international organization accession. Those latter two, are at stake from the interim accord, and not their integrity or sovereignty (which are -supposed to be- guaranteed even prior to their accession to the UN due to their right to "self-determination"). NikoSilver 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, I feel the latest duo-sketch with the country's president and his UN general assembly puppet-president, renamings of roads and Airports to 'Alexander the Great', schoolbooks that mess with their kids brains, governmental publications with irredentas etc etc are enough for a reason to break the interim agreement (violation of Art.7.1). So, yes, Greece, has the right to veto their EU/NATO accession anytime IMO. NikoSilver 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert-warring
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification FP. I will keep it in mind. I hope you keep it in mind as well. All the best.Italiotis 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Late Welcome
Apologies for the late welcome. Kindly check the rules below, and ask me whenever in doubt. Καλώς ήρθες! NikoSilver 09:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Na'sai kala. Take a quick tour with the rules, and I'll be there if you need any help. Keep in mind that by following the rules, at least you have a chance to get your point across. By not following the rules you are becoming marginalized, not taken seriously, and sometimes banned altogether from the whole project. NikoSilver 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Macedon project
[Moved from NikoSilver's talkpage]

Kapispera Nico. I would like to make a proposal. As Wikipedia succesfully kept Macedon away of Athens-Skopje name conflict i would suggest to do the same with the rest of Macedon s deriving words. So i suggest for the people to use: Macedon and Macedones and for the language: Macedonic and Ancient Macedonic Language. We should henceforth referred as Macedonia/Macedonian only to the region after being conquered from the roman empire and named in Latin oficially as Macedonia(roman province). In that way we will avoid confusion with the use of the word Macedonian/s that today may mean ethnic macedonians, (modern) greek macedonians, etc and we will obtain a higher flexibility to effectivily ameliorate the article without having any disruption or having to use long ineffective description such as ancient macedonian language etc. I will start giving it a go if no objections. Please list your thoughts. Italiotis 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the discussion in one place for continuity, if you don't mind. Will respond shortly. NikoSilver 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, dbachman (signs: "dab") said the magic words already. Read WP:NCON. Summarizing, the WP article name choice takes the following steps:
 * First, the most common in English academia/literature etc.
 * If there's doubt between two or more common terms: Choose the official name, or its translation thereof in English.
 * If there is still doubt: Use the self-identifying name.
 * In my view there's no question "Macedonia" (or "Macedon") are the most common names. But even if we were to use the official one, then its translation in English would apply (so, again, "Macedonia"). There's no doubt either of those is more frequent than the constructs you proposed.


 * Having said all that, please keep in mind that such WP policies (like WP:NCON) are the result of millions of bytes in discussions by hundreds of contributors. It can be changed, of course, but I doubt it ever will change to the direction you propose for an extremely specific topic (from thousands of topics it may address).


 * Keep up the work, and try to be productive with your ideas. Something may turn up which will be good. NikoSilver 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a point at the box in the Macedon article, in the place of the official language. It says Macedonian, then Attic/Koine Greek. By the term Ancient Macedonian Language we mean the native tongue of the inhabitants. The problem is that the native tongue is not coinciding always with the official language. What if due to the Greek origin of the royal family the official language in the beggining was a kind of Doric Greek? What if the ethnical origins were mixed, and the Greek language was accepted from the beggining as official?

So, I suggest that the box should have this analysis:

800-500 unknown, maybe ancient macedonian 500-356 Attic Greek 356-148 Koine Greek

truthmaniac 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus
One of the key points of contention at the article Northern Cyprus is exactly that: whether or not the area is a de facto state, and how that should be worded. This dispute led to the protection of the article, and I will not become part of that discussion. It's up to the editors to find a consensus on the article's talk page. The same applies to the term "self-proclaimed state": it's up to the editors to come to a consensus about this, by discussing it on the article's talk page. A ecis Brievenbus 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding basileus
Hi I got your message, I just felt it was rather superfluous that's all, if you feel it should change go ahead. I am aware that king and basileus are not equivalents but often in English history the biographies of kings that are written in Greek often use the title basileus. To reiterate, I'm fine with it but it won't hurt if you add a discussion anyway regarding the topic, to see what other users think. (&#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g]] 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC))