User talk:Khirurg/Archive 4

DYK for Death of Aristotelis Goumas
Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

25-pic. "Greeks" chart
Gia sou Athinaie.- Please, can you give a hand in the new Greeks galley picture? I am looking for skilled-hand editors so as to perform the chart. I am not that skilled myself in drawing charts.

Here is the final results table:


 * ANCIENT: Aristotle; Pericles; Alexander the Great; Plato; King Leonidas; Hippocrates; Homer;   Herodotus; Socrates; Archimedes.


 * MEDIEVAL (BYZANTINE) -up to 1500 A.D.-: Hypatia; Alexios Komnenos; Basileios Boulgaroktonos;  Gemisthus Pletho.


 * MODERN -1500 A.D. to 1900 A.D.-: Theodoros Kolokotronis; Georgios Karaiskakis; Lascarina Bouboulina; Ioannis Capodistrias; El Greco; Rigas Feraios.


 * CONTEMPORARY: Eleftherios Venizelos; Georgios Papanikolaou; Pyrros Dimas; Constantine Cavafy; Archbishop Makarios.

Thank you, I would appreciate your help very much so as to give and end to this subject, at least for the moment. Regards.-Periptero (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best, though I have never done this before, so it may take me some time. I too want it to end, but it seems there are some people determined to prevent it from happening. I mean look at this: . I want to wait and see what will happen with the Leonidas image, but even if it is deleted, it's not like there is a shortage of notable Greeks. But rest assured, that collage will go up, with or without Leonidas, and whether some people like or not. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Been to B.A., and it's one of my favorite cities in the world. Narrowly missed a chance to go there again recently. Athenean (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Τελικα,μαλλον απαξιεις να απαντησεις ποιοι ειναι εκεινοι οι "Αλβανοι" που κατοικουν στη βορειοδυτικη Ελλαδα και αποτελουν  ποσοστο μικροτερο του 10% του πληθυσμου της περιοχης και επιμενεις  μαλιστα οτι ο εν λογω χαρτης στο αρθρο για τους αλβανους τους απεικονιζει.Lysus.K (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your understanding about proving that I'm not an elephant. Can you help with getting Himara revolt in the dyk nominations page?CoolMartini (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

collage
why dont you use this image for Kolokotronis? Its much more glorious http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Kolokotronis_Theodore.JPG Greco22 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the one from the πεντοχίλιαρο aesthetically, an it's also the most well-known. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I like them also :). Sometimes are also a target for "fallmerayerans" and various anti-greeks

Anyway, I dont support some replacements for this reason but only for representative reasons Greco22 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Phoenice
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians
Careful. By my count, you're at three reverts. It would not be a good idea to revert again today, even though Hxseek is blocked. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't planning on it, but I'm pretty sure I only have 2 from January 29 . The only other edit I have on that article is from the 26th of January, and it's not a revert. Not that it matters, but just wanted to be sure. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great
I can totaly see your passion and love for Greek art, history, and architecture. You reverted my last addition citing it as POV and stating that it was editoralizing. I agree with the latter but not the former. The source I had clearly cites it so, although I did change the order but now I put the text quoted and I added an extra literature source by Arrian.

I know how you feel about him and I am aware of your contribution to this article. I beileve that you try to create a very positive image of him and that I agree with afterall he was a great man in many ways. I also like to think Alexander for all his complexities and idiosyncracies. The Alexander that I understand is a man of great resolve, pushed to move forward by destiny, calculating, intelligent, and wise, but at the same time conflicted, prone to alcoholism, jealous, and at times void of self control. Alexander is an interesting figure in history of the world, as he possesses a sort of flair that comes with ethnic determination yet he is not like the other conquerers. He is not ghengis Khan, or Turkish crusaders or etc. Alexander has a complicated soul, it is my view that in many ways he is the Greek version of Cyrus the Great. Reading Cyropedia from an early age Alexander grows up admiring the Persians, whom during the time of Xerxes he also grows to hate.

To be honest I like the edit the way it is now and I believe that to give a fair view of who Alexander was we have to put to light both his strengths as well as his weaknesses. However I am bised in your favor too having seen your contributions to the article and I think how I would feel if another person interjected a point in my writing and that does not sound appealing to me.

So long story short, I leave it entirely up to you! If you so incline to take down my additional comments, then be it, but if you feel that perhaps presenting the good and the bad, the complicated and the clear, would give Alexander more dimension and make his article more prominent and worthy to read, then by all means let my edits stay. I guess what I am saying is you do not have to respond to this message unless u so incline or wish to share a thought, as I am giving you full authority to revert the edit, but I wish that you wont because if I was invested in Alexander the Great, then I would do all I can to give more than one aspect of his personality. No matter great job and I am becoming more and more interested in Greek history as I read so I am totally infatuated with Persian, Greek, and Ancient history :). Sincerely yours!

Dr. Persi (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. This is not a question of making Alexander look good or bad, it is a question of relevance. The point is, the destruction of Persepolis has nothing to do with Alexander's personality. The section to which you made the additions strictly discusses Alexander's personality and I don't see how the destruction of Persepolis relates to that. Neither does the source you use tie the destruction of Persepolis to Alexander's personality. Whether he ordered the destruction deliberately, whether it was a lapse of judgment, or whether it was an accident (it happened several months after the taking of Persepolis), we'll never really know, but whatever happened, I just don't see a connection to his personality. Btw, I have nothing against Persia and the Persian people, I have been to Persepolis and visited Cyrus' Tomb (and was quite impressed), but I really feel your additions, while sourced, stray from the subject of the personality section too much. Regards, Athenean (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How about a move of the content to the appropriate section then? I agree but where in the article do you think this data fits? Dr. Persi (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, per WP:LABEL, considering the tone (e.g. "savage orgy"), I don't think it fits anywhere in an encyclopedia. A brief mention of the Persepolis incident is already included in the article, I think that's sufficient. Athenean (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tone is as per article, and it is as per that author who is very reliable a historical fact. We should not choose to censor certain data on the basis of its tone. I can cut out the "savage" from the text if you want. That still should be included becuase if we are to give a full picture of Alexander the Great, it shouldnt be just that he is "amply intelligent" or that he has "great self control" or that he is "erudite" but also that he sometimes is ok with orgies and such as well. I am going to add that to Persepolis section then. Are we in agreement? Dr. Persi (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I moved the word "savage" and removed the section as per your discussio from "personality" to Persia. How do you do now? Is this acceptable? I even added "according to a scholar..." so as not to give the perception that this statement is widespread. cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. "Violent orgy" instead of "Savage orgy"? That is hardly a change. Look, the thing is, here in wikipedia, we have to use neutral wording and avoid such language. I'm sure I could find sources that use similar language for the deeds of the Persians during Xerxes' invasion of Greece, for the Fall of Constantinople, for the capture of Jerusalem by the First Crusade (talk about savage), but as you can see, we don't use such language in those articles. We have to stick by WP:NPOV and avoid such colorful language. While authors such as the one you cite are not constrained to do so and can use whatever they see fit, in wikipedia it's different. I've been editing here since 2007, and I know what I'm talking about. Even about the Holocaust we do not use such language. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that you think the coverage of Alexander in the article is too "positive" and that's why you want to use such language, but that goes completely against the spirit of NPOV. WP:NPOV is one of the pillars of wikipedia, and we have to abide by it, like it or not.Athenean (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it goes both ways, NPOV also entails coverage of both data and I am sure there are a lot of articles or sub articles that such "language" on Xerxes with such ease. I get the feeling that we are trying to white wash everything here on Wiki. Let me work on it. I will get back to you. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here, look at the page now. Also show me the "source" where it shows that Xerxes the Great allowed Persian troops to kill and rape Athenians, then started to kill each other over the spoils ;P (although I am sure you can find a similar source for some other atrocity, as I am sure these old monarchs were all in it). So tell me what you think of this change I made?. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, as I said before you have complete authority as I am not well read in Alexander the Great so feel free to go as you wish. I simply hoped to follow in a path that is approved by you. To me it looks fair now but again up to you. Peace. Dr. Persi (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am awfully busy right now, though I did look at your recent changes and they seemed in the right direction. I will think about it a little bit more. Athenean (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After some thought, I removed the whole "murder and rape" thing as excessively graphic verbiage that serves no particular purpose other than shock value. Other than that, I think we're ok. Though the article suffers from an overuse of primary sources, the quote from Arrian has merit and I will leave it there. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is a mistake on your part, as you will devalue the article, in what I personally believe to be a white washed account. But as you wish. No worries ! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Defending Armenia
Seems like you've been to many countries but not Armenia in your info page. Yet you are still talking about the armenian genocide. I think it is because of your greek origin. Please try to be neutral. Thanks. 92.45.12.22 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Paranoia in Albanians
Take in account that Zjarri-Aegist, unexplained revert-ready activity is closely connected with their irc off-wiki interaction.Alexikoua (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there
I also hold accounts: user:Besokontrollo, user:Sepastaj, and user:Mother Albania, so we met earlier and you asked me this question already. I have good reason to believe that those accounts were stolen the passwords, because I edited from public computers. I'll stick with this one and not change it anymore now. My problem is that I really have no clue how to do the committed identity, so that I feel safer. From the public university where I editied from there are a lot of students that play password games. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lost passwords, how interesting. I think I've heard that one before. Also interesting that you created this account January 2, but still edited as Sepastaj till January 16. I think I know what's going on here (and who you really are). You do realize that if you get caught, considering who I know you are, it will be indef, right? All I have to do is file an SPI. Athenean (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand, but I told you the truth. Why did you remove your posting at talk:Albanians? --Brunswick Dude (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

AE
I will take back direct accusations against u if u take back u'r accusation that I need to be blanket banned coz I'm some kind of malicious editor. If I'm fiery, I'll watch this. However, I have a lot to contribute, and am certainly not some kind of phobe-Hellene. Quite the opposite Hxseek (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Deal. I had already struck my request that you be topic banned as a gesture of good will, but I now removed it altogether. I understand that you are genuinely interested in the subject and have a lot to contribute, and I also understand you are no ανθέλλην, and never claimed that you were one, no worries. Peace. Athenean (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll change minenshortly.( iPads are too cumbersome) Hxseek (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

√ Hxseek (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Macedonia
Greetings! Could you please check the above and possibly write up some better content for that page. Do you think it should stand as an article or is the material (if anything significant is there at all) is already covered in other articles? Thanks. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 07:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, good to see you're still around. I think there is enough material for an article, and I agree the article is in terrible shape at the moment. However, I am currently busy with Ancient Macedonians, which is taking up all my energy. Actually, I was wondering if you would be willing to participate there, there is quite a debate going on. Maybe we can work on Ottoman Macedonia afterwards. Athenean (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you. Athenean (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Could use them at Michael Kefalianos.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 10:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Aeolian vs NW Greek
Hi. Apart from Hammond, who else (ie something based on inscriptionary evidence, etc) has argued that Macedonian might have rather been more akin to Aeolian ? And if so, was this more pertinent in lower vs upper Macedonia. I know that Hatzopoulos discusses this in that Congress in Thessaloniki, which is up on HistoryofMacedonia website.

Also, do u agree with the idea that Doric and NW GReek dialect groups aren;t really distinct dialect groups, because they do not possess any common innovations which Aetolian, Ionioan or Arcado-Cypriot do not have ? It is as if they are collection of localized, somewhat simpler dialects ? (And i am not necessarily agreeing with Chadwick's hypothesis)

Hxseek (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC

Lete article
Hi Athinaios, I've noticed that the article of Lete is vandalised. I also, notice that the name of the village is written in slavic. What's the point of the slavic name in an ancient village? Besides, the only slavs settled (much later) in the area were Bulgarians. truthmaniac 9 February 2011

Sock
Guess who is socking? I had from the very start suspicion that he might be but now it's more than obvious that he wants to finish his unfinished job as Sulmues (for example nominating for ga article the previous account had a great desire make, and delisting ga articles his previous account didn't like)Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But his confidence leads me to suspect that he has done some gimmick with the IPs and thinks he is safe from CU (I'm guessing he changed geolocation, that's why he's doing this). Gather as much evidence as you can, but be careful not to post it on-wiki until the right time, per WP:BEANS. Athenean (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Take also into account that the 'retired' tag was Sulmue's favorite strategy when he witness a 'defeat in his national povs'.Alexikoua (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages: Vote and scope
Hi. Check out Talk:Science in the Middle Ages Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ioannina Vilayet
Since you have participated in this discussion there is a new debate there. It appears that user Zjarri. doesn't consider you an 'experienced editor' since he collectivelly called a number of editors to participate.Alexikoua (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

? revert
I don't think it quantifies as a revert, does it ? I did not remove your entire content - I left in your re-amendment of the stuff on PCT!

I merely removed a redundant line: The majority of the words are Greek, several inscriptions have revealed some tendencies toward Doric Greek and Aeolic Greek; on the other hand, there can be found some Illyrian and Thracian elements.[50]

I have no issue with any its contecnt, however, it has become redundant because what it says is covered by the newly put linguistics sources. Ie the interpretation of the inscriptions is covered by your line on the PCT deals with the NW GReek component and my addition of Hatzopuolos discusses his take on Aeolic contribution. The lexical/ vocabulary issue is also covered well in the assessment in mid-paragraph. So the line from Borza merely duplicates stuff already covered later.

If you absolutely disagree with me, please let me know and I will re-insert it Slovenski Volk (talk)


 * It is a partial revert, and as such it is a clear cut violation of your revert parole. That much is beyond doubt. I also also don't agree with the removal of the content itself, as the PCT isn't the only inscription in Macedonian. As the Companion makes clear, there are several other fragmentary inscriptions, though the PCT is so far the only substantial inscription. Athenean (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I can put it back in; athough the content is already covered. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, are you going to, or not? Athenean (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * settle down, its done (I am a surgeon, you know, outside Wikiworld). Yep, it's put back in. I just split Borza's part in two. The part on inscriptions follows were it was originally, the part on "the majority f words are Greek" occurs couple lines later, in the lexical discussion. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then maybe you should focus more on your surgeries than on wikipedia stuff. God knows your patients would appreciate it :) Athenean (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have't killed anyone, yet. I think the language paragraph has shaped up OK. Next i hope to add the stuff on lifestyle, which I earlier presented on the talk page, and will edit in the few points you brought up on it. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, Athenean. I think you are out of line by calling my addition that "Masson and Dubois interpreted" the PCT as NW Greek as "hedging". Firstly, check your definition of what hedging is. There is no subvertive undertone in my addition, it is merely representing fact. Masson and Dubois interpreted the PCT as NW Greek. As you know, the PCT does not possess anything about it which makes it's categorization as NW Greek unequivocal. In fact, it has all the somewhat discordant features that certain of the glosses and names do. That is why that even after its dicovery, a concensus is lacking. Thus to insist that on leaving the sentence as it stands is a misrepresentation of the situation and what the sources say about it. I think you have been rather fair and reasonable so far, and I don't want to halt the progress we are slowly making, however, we need to represent the sources truthfully, and as an educated editor, you should agree with. I do accept edits of yours which are fair enough {eg I agree that my addition of Hall's reflection on the matter is perhaps unneccessary} Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

However, that the language of the tablet is a form of Greek is beyond doubt. I can practically understand all of it (as could any reasonably educated fluent Greek speaker), and I don't speak a word of Illyrian, Thracian, Brygian, etc... Athenean (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, none of the other claims in the article are similarly hedged. Nor are they attributed to specific authors ("X says", "According to Y and Z"), so I don't see why that should be the case for the PCT. In general, I am against dropping names of authors in the main text, as it assumes our readers know who they are and is somewhat esoteric. Now, that the language of the tablet is a form of Greek is beyond doubt. I can practically understand all of it (as could any reasonably educated fluent Greek speaker), and I don't speak a word of Illyrian, Thracian, or Brygian. What needs to be hedged, and is suitably hedged is that because the language of the tablet is NW, that XMK is NW Greek. Now that should be hedged, and it is ("the tablet has been used to support the argument that XMK was NW Greek"). However, that the language of the tablet is a form of Greek is beyond dispute. I have yet to see a source that says otherwise. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's fine. I accept that. It's quite interesting you can basically understand all of it Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hellenic Nomarchy
Seems this atricle needs to pass the nomination. Thanks for your time c-p it.Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey
The section you started is now apparently treated as a majority-wins vote... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Diren Yardimli will be reported for edit-warring. It is the only way to deal with the situation. Athenean (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done . Feel free to pitch in. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'd rather not since I am obviously Armenian... the only Navajo-speaking one to boot. Talk about seeing ghosts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He got blocked, so be on the lookout for socks. And thanks for all the help. Athenean (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for cleaning up that strange bit in fustanella. (User:Manytexts) 110.32.241.53 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cupcaker is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Confederatre. Kavas (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. You should file a WP:SPI, or else post on WP:AN/I since this case is quite obvious. I can't take any action myself, I am not an administrator. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm glad you liked it. I am now working on Early History ie the Argead origins, Herodotus' accounts of conquest, etc; into which I'll incorporate the Geographic origins section. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy Nowruz!!!
Happy Nowruz man! I am sure you do not celebrate but accept this as a celebatory gesture nontheless. Hope you and your loved ones have a great and fruitful year! Dr. Persi (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much my friend, all the best to you too. Athenean (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC, I am imposing a mutual interaction ban on you and as a reuslt of the AE request you filed against the latter. You are forbidden from reverting their edits, editing their talk page (or any other part of their userspace) or from interacting with or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia with the sole exception of filing a legitimate AE request against them or an appeal against this sanction. You are also to make all reasonable efforts to avoid articles where you know them to be active. Finally, you are cautioned that any future instances of disruption in the area of conflict by either you or ZjarriRrethues may result in an indefinite topic ban for one or both parties. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

India v. South Asia
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

South Asian list

 * Please participate in the discussion on Talk: List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Circulatory system
[1] Your opinion (or my opinion) of what forms the basis of the circulatory system is irrelevant really. [2] I follow Wikipedia's source policy for my sources, not yours.

Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great reference
In you removed. This caused a Cite error at the end of the references section, as described at Template:Reflist. If the reference is no longer needed then please remove it from the references section. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please comment there Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sulmues
Hi. I am curious if you know what happened to Sulmues. He was very active in editing certain articles and then suddenly disappeared. What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Fairly obvious who this "Doktor Plumbi" is. Have a look here . Athenean (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at that SPI and decided to save a link to it on my userpage because I realised I might find it useful. Keep up a good work!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Yes, you should study the SPI to see how it is done, because it is likely to be necessary again in the future (although it will get easier and easier with each instance of socking). You study the contribs of both accounts, and present the evidence succinctly (say, less than 50 diffs) and professionally (no name calling or anything like that), in a clear and organized manner, then sit back and let the admins do their job. Athenean (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote on article name
Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

3 reverts
May I ask you which article is it? Greek genocide? If so, I can only see two reverts there. One revert of Dr. K^s, one of your edit. --Seksen (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on Greater Albania
Please list the bits that amount to POVs on Greater Albania, contributed by MJDANikhila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJDANikhila (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for talking instead of reverting. Now, regarding your edits:


 * There was no "large" Albanian population living under Greek jurisdiction in 1912. A few thousand Chams is not "large".


 * You removed perfectly sourced material without explanation, and Chameria is no longer chiefly inhabited by Chams.


 * unsourced, "breathing space" is POV.


 * unsourced, the "injustice" is POV.


 * hasn't faded, it is still very much alive. Also unsourced.


 * unexplained removal of sourced material.


 * unsourced. Please see WP:OR.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Athenean (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is exactly what you should do....should go on. Now, dismissing my whole contribution is not the correct step. I advise that you take it sentence by sentence and on the points you have reservation than you can raise the red flag.

I have not dismissed wholesale the contributions of others (For example: WWII events. Although i need to know if there was official agreement, put in paper between Italy and Albanian government for the Verlaci policy.So it is irresponsible to dismiss wholesale my contributions.

It is not about me if I get the point, the importance is in relaying NPOV information on an issue. As it stands it is also POV. But it is someone else’s POV and therefore not a POV to you. This is not about me so i discourage you from personalising participation on Wiki project.

It is clear that you have not paid attention as much. If you pay attention “large” relates to Yugoslavia and “lesser degree” to Greece. For Yugoslavia is used “rule”. For Greece is used “jurisdiction”. You can rewrite the sentences to make these clear. Now, the league of Prizren has no connection at all with the concept of Greater Albania, irrespective of your sources. Sources are not immune from POV and other factors. The league of Prizren could not foresee the 1912 outcome and therefore could not call for a Greater Albania. There was no Albania at the time, and their calls were for Albanian self government within Ottoman Empire. Since the territories (kosovo, chameria, etc) making up Greater Albania were Ottoman Empire to whom was (the suggested) Legue’s expansionist call directed to?

Greater Albania agenda could only exist after the establishment of the Albanian state. In the aftermath of the Balkan wars there was lobbying by the Albanian politicians for inclusion of all territories where Albanians were in majority into the future Albanian state.

That inclusion as wished by the Albanian politicians did not happen hence the emergence of the idea of greater Albania. It is the same as it was with Greece. One cannot say that the Megali Idea preceded the establishment of the Greek state because one did not know the outcome as to where the borders of the Greek state would lie.

The idea of Greater Albania, Megali Idea or Greater Serbia and so on is strictly policy or wish that challenges treaties, agreements.

I object to the whole article in its direction. Is there such a stated policy (Greater Albania/Ethnic Albania) by the current and past Governments of the Republic of Albania, with the exception of the interwar period government under PM Verlaci. Please provide evidence that the Republic of Albania does not recognize the borders with Greece, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo-Serbia and that it has a stated policy defying treaties and agreements?

Kosovo has nothing to do with Republic of Albania as it is an independent state initiated and granted by USA, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the West in general (bar Greece-Spain-Romania-Slovakia-Cyprus).

I am talking a about state policy here no peoples wishes.

There is an implication that the Republic of Albania is responsible for the secession of Kosovo. Please state evidence that Republic of Albania went to unilateral war with Yugoslavia and annexed Kosovo. Kosovo independence is not Greater Albania. It was not fought by the Albanian Army. The articles in Wikipedia are not about “ifs”, for example: “if Kosovo and Albania merge” than that amounts to Greater Albania. That is speculation. --MJDANikhila (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tymvoi
Hi. Might you be so kind as to explain the exact transliteration of the above ? (I gather it relates to burial description). Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The closest I can think of is "tumuli (Τύμβοι is plural). Athenean (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck
Then it must be a duck. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%931922)&action=history

The edit warring continues. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 12:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ok. The IP address has been blocked. Sockpuppet investigation upgraded the rating on the block.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 14:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of that. I can't be online all the time. Athenean (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Universities
I have discussed it. Frankly it is highly irritating when someone throws the baby out with the bathwater on even the smallest change - and one that makes sure the topic is explained properly, so we don't have to discuss whether the Madrasah's are universities again - which without some proper explanation in the article itself is inevitable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have discussed it, but you haven't obtained consensus. I happen to agree with Gun Powder Ma, there is no need to rehash the definition of what a university is in the lede. Athenean (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? How does that solve the problem of people continually adding Islamic Madrasah's to the article? That problem isn't likely to magically go away without any changes. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because a) the definition is already given in medieval university, and b) Lists don't usually include lengthy definitions and ledes. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If a) was an adequate solution then there wouldn't be an issue - I'm not the only one by any means to have added Islamic Madrasah's to the article in even the short time that I've been paying attention to the page.
 * b) Take a look at List of castles in Cheshire, List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes and List of Sendai International Music Competition winners, the first three featured lists I clicked on. They all have at least a three paragraph lead, so adding a couple of sentences of definition is hardly a problem from that . -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have an alternative solution to the problem that editors (and presumably readers) are getting confused about the inclusion of Islamic Madrasah's in the University list - beyond doing nothing - then I'm more than happy to hear it, maybe there's a better solution than mine out there. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So... Do you have a point to make? If so why haven't you made it before? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is, GPM didn't remove anything, only moved one sentence out of the lede and into the body text . By re-adding this sentence to the lede without removing the one in the body text, you are the one introducing duplicate material. Also, the argument that mentioning the Arab world in the lede will lead to less POV-pushing falls completely with this . Rather it seems to be having the opposite effect. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to argue that its less effective than it was before you're going to need to give it a bit longer than 2 weeks. And the guy who added that content bought a reliable source to the table from the Edinburgh University Press, so it can hardly be described as "POV pushing", but if you want to make the point that it'll lead to less arguments then you need to leave it in the lead for more than a couple of weeks to lead to anything other than statistical noise.
 * Of note I would have reverted his change too as he needs more than one source to make that point.
 * With regards to the duplicate content I missed that he'd added it further down.-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing the discussion on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Now taken to dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Are you saying that I have been engaging in sock-puppetry ?

There has been some suspicious un-logged activity. You might want to check. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't evade. I asked you a simple question, yes or no. Final chance. Athenean (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't think I can believe you. Athenean (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming to Hellas to party and resuscitate ur economy :) Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't know you partied that hard. Don't miss Vergina and Dion while you're there :) Athenean (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not that rich, nor wild. I'll be starting in islands, then might drive from northern Macedonia down to Greece subsequently. Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
Do you really think the fustanella comes from the chiton? Please check this greek documentary because this give me some little questions --Vinie007 10:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, i never heard macedonia uses the fustanella, only Greeks and Albanians so far i know --Vinie007 10:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lesbos
I can agree to the Turkish name being given in the history section because the island was once part of the Ottoman Empire, but not in the lead. None of the reasons given in WP:NCGN for including the name in Turkish in the lede apply. Imbros is a very different case: The island was always inhabited by Greeks and even now there are Greeks. By contrast, there aren't any Turks on Lesbos and never many in the past. Athenean (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact I like alternative names. Constantinople-Konstantinopolis-Poli-Istanbul etc, Edirne-Odrin-Adrianopole-Adrianoupolis etc. However, if there were such rule you mentioned, we have to remove all of them. At first please remove Ανδριανούπολις from Edirne and transfer to appropreate section (if any)　of the article. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like alternative names too, but there are limits. These limits are given in WP:NCGN. Otherwise, anyone could include any alternative name wherever they like, resulting in some pretty weird situations. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

massive vandalism of greece
anti-Greek vandalists   Future Perfect at Sunrise Dbachmann  cplakidas  strong vandalism on gReek languege and hellenic. Εσυ δε βλέπεις τι γινεται εχουν αφαιρεσει ολες τις πηγες με το ετσι θελω στις γλωσσες και τη μουσικη της ελλαδας γυφτικη με το ζορι... κανε κατι κ συ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMEGAS1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation
You guys can either work with what I've done, or you we can escalate it yet again. At the dispute resolution noticeboard it was shown that your viewpoint was baseless against policy and you stopped talking. At this point you are just being highly disruptive. And if you're going to claim its "OR" almost all the text was already present. If you wish to make reasonable improvements, beyond throwing all the new text out go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For example this "When they spread they eventually replaced all other higher-learning institutions and became the preeminent institution for higher education everywhere." is completely OR. It implies there were higher learning institutions everywhere in places where there are universities now. But the ancient higher learning institutions of India for example were long gone by the time the first universities opened there. So to claim that the older institutions were "replaced" by unversities is nonsense, and OR. I don't see anything at the DRN in favor of including something like this. I also wouldn't edit war if I were you, and definitely not call others' edits vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND and WP:TE. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote the article as it currently stands "From the early modern period onwards, the university gradually spread from the medieval Latin west across the globe, eventually replacing all other higher-learning institutions and becoming the preeminent institution for higher education everywhere." - so all I did was change the words slightly so it fit the new text. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And lets not forget you are currently editing against policy as Occasi showed to you both in dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What policy? There is no consensus for your edits, and you are alone in pushing them. This is not how we do things here, rather, it is WP:TE. You are going to have to get consensus, it's that simple. so far I see no evidence of that. Athenean (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take another read through the |dispute resolution noticeboard thread - specifically the last comment from Ocaasi which points out the policies that you are breaking. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you would do well to read through WP:GUIDES. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And I suggest you go through WP:CONSENSUS. Insistently trying to insert your changes against consensus is WP:TE. Athenean (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. I have guidelines (as well as the comments by User:Ocaasi) to backup my line of thinking, so I have a pretty strong consensus actually. You appear to have nothing beyond one sentence which you've pointed out is OR which I am more than happy to remove. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are completely alone, so no you definitely do not have any kind of consensus. Did you read through WP:CONSENSUS. By the way please don't hope that you can keep posting here until you have the last word and then claim I "stopped talking". You don't have any kind of consensus, period. The sooner you accept that, the better for everyone involved. I'm not going to repeat myself. Athenean (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not "alone" because Ocaasi agrees with my position, and you only have two people on your "side" as everyone else has got bored. Please read the dispute resolution thread. We can escalate it again, and discuss it at the mediation cabal if its really needed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that its the strength of the arguments that count. If I have a guideline backing up my position and you have nothing then I clearly have consensus with the sorts of numbers we are talking about here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Troll Cplakidas - μειονοτητες εντος Ελλαδας
Καλησπερα! Αν και ειναι εξω απ τις αρμοδιοτητες σου, μπορεις σε παρακαλω να κανεις εναν ελεγχο στον χρηστη ; Εχω την εντυπωση πως ειναι γνωστο "troll", σλαβικης - οθομανικης καταγωγης, που εχει την γνωστη επιμονη να απασχολει τα Ελληνικα αρθρα μετατρεποντας τα σε σλαβικα, προσποιουμενος (δηθεν) τον Ελληνα. - Κακη συνταξη (Σβησιμο και ξαναγραψιμο της ιδιας προτασης με λαθη) Χειριστα Αγγλικα χωρις επισημανση (τουλαχιστον εγω τα μιλαω του ποδαριου, λογω βαρεμαρας με επισημανση!), τρανταχτα στοιχεια που προδιδουν το "troll". Κανε εναν ελεγχο σε παρακαλω και ισως ειδοποιησω αργοτερα και ανωτερα στελεχη της βικι. - Σ'ευχαριστω! -BouzoukiGr (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Τρομάρα μου οι αληθινοί Έλληνες™ με πήραν χαμπάρι! Ευτυχώς δεν ανακάλυψαν ακόμα ότι πέρα από σλαβική-οθωμανική καταγωγή έχω επίσης αλβανική, γερμανική, αζτεκική, περσική και κινέζικη, ή ότι με πληρώνουν οι Ελοχίμ και η ΜΟΣΑΝΤ για να καταστρέψω τον ελληνισμό μαζί με το Γιωργάκη. Ε ρε παπαριές που έχουμε να δούμε ακόμα εδώ πέρα... Constantine  ✍  16:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Α, καλα καταλαβα! Ειναι οι γνωστες (ομιλουντες την Ελληνικη) μειονοτητες εντος Ελλαδας, που το ενδιαφερον τους το επικεντρωνουν στα ελαχιστα αρθρα των σλαβων προσπαθωντας να κανουν συλλογες πηγων για την τεκμηριωση τους! τις περισσοτερες φορες ατεκμηριωτες απο την βικιπαιδεια (εφοσον δεν γινονται δεκτες απτην πλειοψηφια) οπως εκανε και επι του Θωμα τοu σλαβου παλιοτερα - αρθρο (Thomas the Slav). Μια προσεχτικη παρατηρηση στην ip-διευθυνση, δειχνει του λογου το αληθες! Μυριζει μειονοτητα... --BouzoukiGr (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Καλά κρασιά... Μεταξύ μας, στη θέση σου δεν θα σχολίαζα την ελληνικότητα η μή άλλων αν έγραφα τόσο ασυνάρτητα ελληνικά όσο εσύ. Αν θες να λέγεσαι Έλληνας, μάθε πρώτα να χειρίζεσαι σωστά τη γλώσσα μας. Όσο για τις μπούρδες που γράφεις πιο πάνω, μετά χαράς πήγαινέ τις στα "ανώτερα στελέχη" μαζί με τα "ατράνταχτα στοιχεία" σου. Ιδού και το κατάλληλο λινκ: WP:ANI. Θα γελάσει και το παρδαλό κατσίκι. Constantine  ✍  17:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

''Ειναι οι γνωστες μειονοτητες που το ενδιαφερον τους το επικεντρωνουν στα ελαχιστα αρθρα των σλαβων, προσπαθωντας να κανουν συλλογες πηγων για την τεκμηριωση τους! τις περισσοτερες φορες ατεκμηριωτες απο την βικιπαιδεια ομως'' το επαναλαμβανω. Εκτος απο το να κανεις μονο λαθη συντακτικα, αν μπορεις ας προσπαθησεις να μιλησεις καλα στο ελαχιστο οπως εγω! παρα να μιλας σαν πακιστανος μπουζουξης του δρομου, Οσο για τα αγγλικα ας ταφησω καλυτερα, αλλα αφου μειονοτητες ειστε, δεν υπαρχουν ξερετε και πολλες απαιτησεις στο προσωπο σας και δικαιολογημενα, βρωμαει μεχρι περα το θεμα σας... --BouzoukiGr (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Να μιλήσω καλά? Με κάποιον που χωρίς κανένα τεκμήριο απολύτως λέει ότι είμαι σλαβο-οθωμανός πράκτορας? Με κάποιον που τον όρο "μειονότητα" τον χειρίζεται σαν βρισιά και σαν κατηγορία εθνικής προδοσίας? Με κάποιον που στην κοσμάρα του όποιος διαφωνεί μαζί του ή προσπαθεί να εφαρμόσει τις πολιτικές και τους κανονισμούς της WP για το copyright είναι αντεθνικό στοιχείο? Τί πίνεις ρε φίλε? Ποιός νομίζεις ότι είσαι και έχεις το δικαίωμα να αμφισβητείς το αν είμαι Έλληνας ή όχι? Με ξέρεις κι από χτες? Έχω αντιμετωπίσει αρκετές μαλακίες από ξένους στη ζωή μου για χάρη της Ελλάδας και φάει αρκετές επίσης μαλακίες από Ελληνάρες της δεκάρας για να ανέχομαι μπούρδες από άγνωστους τύπους στο ίντερνετ που δεν μπορούν να συντάξουν μια πρόταση σωστά. WP:DNFTT από δω και πέρα. Παρεμπιπτόντως, δεν ξέρω που ζεις, αλλά πακιστανό μπουζουξή στο δρόμο δεν έχω δει ακόμα στην Ελλάδα. Ενδιαφέρων συνδυασμός ακούγεται. Constantine  ✍  18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Το βλεπω¨πως.. το συντακτικο σου για νομπελ, ολο λαθη  WP:DNFTT πηγαινε, οσο για το νεο ειδος "πακιστανος μπουζουξής" μην το γελας, μπορει να εισαι κ ο πρωτος που θα το υιοθετησει! (ενα χρησιμο βιβλιο,ειδικο για μειονοτητες) http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/index.html --BouzoukiGr (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigoura eiste oloi Ellhnes. Mono oi Ellhnes vriskountai shnexeia se efileo polemo. Thelo thn voitheia sas. Kai ton Manoli Chioti prospathisan na svisoun shmera. Mou exoun ponesi to stomaxh mou. Pane oloi oi mbouzouksides mazomenoi.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Πάει ο καφενές, ♪ / πάει ο μπαγλαμάς ♫ ♩ / που 'παιζε ο γεροντόμαγκας ♪♩ ... – didn't you see that problem was solved? I told you the copyvio thing was a mistake. (In other news, ο παλιός ο μάγκας δε βγάζει πια μιλιά ). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry που επεμβαινω,αλλα αυτες τις προτασεις  έχω επίσης αλβανική, γερμανική, αζτεκική, περσική και κινέζικη, ή ότι με πληρώνουν οι Ελοχίμ και η ΜΟΣΑΝΤ η Ποιός νομίζεις ότι είσαι και έχεις το δικαίωμα να αμφισβητείς το αν είμαι Έλληνας ή όχι? Με ξέρεις κι από χτες? Έχω αντιμετωπίσει αρκετές μαλακίες από ξένους στη ζωή μου για χάρη της Ελλάδας και  Με κάποιον που στην κοσμάρα του όποιος διαφωνεί μαζί του ή προσπαθεί να εφαρμόσει τις πολιτικές και τους κανονισμούς  !  ΜΟΝΟ ΕΝΑΣ ΜΠΟΥΖΟΥΞΗΣ ΠΑΚΙΣΤΑΝΟΣ ΘΑ ΤΙΣ ΕΓΡΑΦΕ !χααχαχα!!   --PartaMou (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This one's been blocked too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ancient History
Again, why must you revert the whole page for a couple of words? Did you not see I had made other contributions to other sections? I find it as also being both unfair and biased, how you would like this article to refer to Xerxes the Great's conquering of Greece as an "invasion", but Alexander's subsequent invasion of Persia as "conquering". Remember you have to keep a NPOV. And your argument in the edit summary holds no value, because Xerxes DID conquer Greece. Yes, Alexander also did conquered Persia, but only years later. So please don't revert an edit without READING ALL THE CHANGED MADE first, and please try to keep a neutral point of view at all times. Thanks a lot. --Xythianos (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Newsflash: Persia lost the Greco-Persian Wars, so no, it didn't "conquer" Greece. Deal with it. As for NPOV, you call this Persia was a cradle of science in earlier times. Ancient Persians contributed to the current understanding of nature, medicine, mathematics, and philosophy... NPOV? I suggest you read WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. Also, your addition is completely unsourced, and therefore WP:OR. As for the contributions to algebra and chemistry, yes, those are notable, but they occurred in the medieval period (2nd millennium AD), while this article is about ancient history (i.e. nothing past the Islamic conquest. Athenean (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Have you heard of the Battle of Thermopylae and others wars that the Persians decisively won against the Greeks? Also, there is a reason why they're called Greco-Persian War"S", emphasis on the "s" at the end. You cannot decide an overall victor for a series of something. And how did Greece "free itself from Persian rule" if it wasn't CONQUERED by Persia in the first place? I don't get your logic, and by the way, the difference between the words "invasion" and "conquering" is ethnic bias. In order to separate facts from one's CULTURAL perception, you have to see things objectively. That's how you remove your own individual bias(es). You know, we Persians call Alexander's "conquering" an invasion, and you Greeks call Xerxes' conquering an invasion... do you get it?--Xythianos (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm yes, you sound like a paragon of objectivity. Have you heard of the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea or just Thermopylae? In case you haven't heard of them, we have two excellent articles about them right here on wikipedia. Now, if you are going try to claim that the Greco-Persian Wars ended in a Persian victory and the conquest of Greece, let me know so I can stop wasting my time with this discussion. I never claimed that Greece freed itself from Persian rule, just that after Salamis and Plataea, the threat to Greece of a Persian invasion ended once and for all. Yes, Persia invaded Greece, but it never conquered it. It did conquer Ionia, which was however freed at the conclusion of the Wars. That, however is another story. Athenean (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

YOU need to stop pushing YOUR Greek-nationalist agenda onto the Ancient History page. I included ONLY ONE of the Achaemenid victories (Battle of Thermopylae) in the whole timeline, yet you remove it and include TWO additional ultra-nationalistic opinionated facts, keeping in mind that Alexander's "victory" was already mentioned... So how on this earth can you seriously accuse me of pushing nationalism, when your "points" are obviously biased in favour of the Greeks, Whie I'm trying to keep a neutral point here, and include a few accomplishments of both sides. So I'm going to edit the article again, and hopefully I won't have to see another revert after this, just because you may FEEL that the Greeks are not praised and glorified enough. And by the way, Persia DID conquer Greece. You and other Greek nationalists consider it invading, but what Alexander did at Persepolis was no less horrible AND INVASIVE then what Xerxes did at Athens. Seriously try to keep a unbiased view from now on, and yes I know you Greeks are a very nationalistic people in general, but there is a plentiful amount of nationalist forums for that, so keep these urges out of Wikipedia. Thanks!!--Xythianos (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New meat/sock
After Pakashem's new block a new meat/sock has taken action, by removing terms like N. Epirus etc in all articles. Although it might be a sign that this is another off wiki mobilized user, this seems to me more like an old blocked user on a revenge mision.Alexikoua (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not yet convinced this is a Pakapsock. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm having some trouble over at Ancient history with a Persian nationalist who insists on replacing Salamis and Plataea with Thermopylae, for no other reason than Thermopylae is a Persian victory, even though the other two are far more significant. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Statue of Athena
With regards to which picture to use, there are a number of considerations. You keep referring to it as a matter of your own personal taste. But really, that has nothing to do with it.

The 19th century (I would presume) statue of Athena has a number of points in its favour:
 * It faces into the article rather than out of it. At a place where it is impossible to move the pic right.
 * It represents Athena as the symbol of the city, not as a work of art in a museum. It was created for that symbolic purpose.
 * Its relevance is continuing, and public. It stands in a public place.
 * From a purely formatting point of view, it looks very much better in the context of the article than the other picture does, because it picks up the blue colour in the background.

With regards to the ancient statue:
 * It faces out of the article.
 * Its dull. It's background is dull. It requires viewing at high res in order to see at at any advantage.
 * It is a Roman reproduction, not a genuine Ancient Athenian original, which lessens it value in an article on Athens.
 * It is very much a museum piece and is displayed in a museum context, not int he context of having relevance to a modern city.
 * It does nothing to enhance the overall format of the article.

It is possible to put ones personal preference aside and look at the overall picture.

Amandajm (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice Athenean. I always try to reference my edits, and if you follow my contribs you will see that I usually do. Thanks again and I hope we can collaborate in the future. AngBent (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Sock revival
It appears that this user [] is again into full action naming everything Illyrian and placing references of cheapest quality []. Can you please help me with the vandalised articles, there are dozens of Macedonian/Lyncestian nobles labbelled Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian Struggle and Kostja's interference
I have worked for the improvement of Macedonian Struggle, providing credible references that explain the historical reality. Yet Kostja is constantly trying to censor me. If you are interested in this article, please come and help restore the truth. And tell other Greek users of this interference, so we can stop the Bulgarian POV. AngBent (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Minorities??
Watch this out User talk:Aigest. Propably minorities (sockpuppet of user Yangula): user Omnipaedista. Haters of Greece, Greek music, Greek history. Lovers of Turkish music,Gypsy music and middle east.--94.66.147.75 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned your name
here--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply
HI Athenean. Please see AM talk page, I replied to your reply. Thanks Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * May I propose a suitable sentence in-keeping with the literature and current state of knowledge for the lede: "The earliest history of Macedonians is not known with certainty, however scholars agree that by the 5th century they were predominantly an ancient Greek people, with Thracian and Illyrian intermixture. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not enough is known about the degree and extent of "Thracian and Illyrian intermixture" to have it in the lede. Athenean (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you don't know, but in the literature a significant amount is known, and given that its widely acknowledged it is worthy of inclusion. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know very well that a large body of the literature considers them an ancestrally Greek population, which seems to really really bother you. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. Have I ever denied the general impression ? No ! I merely wanted an NPOV, and wanted to highlight the complexities of identity and ethnicity in our period of question. We have achieved this in the body, and I'm happy with your last version. Qualifying complexities does not amount to 'denialist' or 'revisionist' history - rather - it merely serves to improve an article when done correctly and using RS. So drop the insinuation that I'm engaged on a personal crusade, because I also edit other various article about peoples in antiquity with same approach (ie making them objective, adequately representative of various theories without UNDUE, and removing nationalistic overtonmes as much as possible. See for yourself (Im sure you already follow me anyway)) Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am willing to assume good faith on your part. But we all have our POVs and few people with ties to area can claim to be "objective". Anyway, I am glad you like my last version and I hope the issue is resolved. Athenean (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Admittedly, no humman is entirely divorced from emotional factors Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Athenean, sorry to bring this back up again, however, I still feel the lede needs adjustment so that it is properly structured. AFAIC, i don't care whether "Illyrian" and "Thracian" are mentioned, in fact, they probably best are not - given that they were clearly different ethnie. What my concern with the lede is that it needs to contain, like any proper intro, is commentary about the Macedonians' (i) identity (ii) language (iii) material culture (iv) political history, in a succint but adequately NPOV way. At the moment, all 4 are somewhat jumbled together, and whilst related, are actually 4 different 'strands' which made the Macedonians. An illustrative example would best serve my points (italics= my proposed new additions/ amendments):

for (1) Generally described as an ancient Greek people, the details as to how Macedonians related to Greeks was a complicated affair which remains a topic of post-modernist discourse.

(2) It is generally proposed they spoke a Greek dialect or a language related to the Greek family of languages

(3) The Macedonians possessed a distinctive material culture showing greatest affinities to the 'warrior' communities / tribes of the central Balkans, whilst Hellenizing influences became readily apparent from the mid 6th century (plus sources, of course). Despite this, there was a great degree of cultural continuity from the Bronze Age into Hellenistic times

(4) {as already is} - they gradually expanded from their homeland along the Haliacmon valley on the northern edge of the Greek world, subjegating various tribes and colonies during this process. Although composed of various tribes, the Kingdom of Macedon, established around the 8th century BC, is mostly associated with the Argeads ...etc.

What do you think about this ? it is to the point, not overly -complicated, and covers all dimensions on the subject Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Am awfully busy at the moment, but will get back to you soon. Athenean (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * After some thought, I don't think major changes are needed to the lede. Maybe the one about the language, but that's it. That the relationship between Macedonians and Greeks is the subject of modern discourse is of course true, but I do not feel the statement is sufficiently informative to go into the lede. I also don't feel material culture (i.e. pots and pans) is lede-worthy either. Regarding 4), I prefer the current version. "Subjugating various tribes" is vague and uninformative, and the kingdom of Macedon is not just associated with the Argeads, it is the kingdom of the Argeads. Most importantly though, I don't want to re-open the whole can of worms about the lede, I would much rather let it rest. Athenean (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion on the matter of the lede, asking for advice from other editors. I wanted to let you know out of courtesy, see here. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia
Hello Athenean. There has been some bitter edit warring in Nicosia over the last couple of months. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to comment on the following issues:

1. Today users Takabeg and Seksen are constantly reverting to a statement that is a clear WP:OR on a WP:PRIMARY source. User Dr.K has agreed. Namely that the Turkish Muncipality of Nicosia is recognised by the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus.

2. In order to give an end to the ongoing dispute and improve the page I suggested that Nicosia should be renamed to Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus and that North Nicosia to Northern Nicosia, TRNC. The fact is that the Republic of Cyprus claims Nicosia as a whole to be it's capital whereas the TRNC claims Northern Nicosia. So this seems to be the most neutral decision to me.

Thanks. Masri145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Seems to have quieted down for now, though one never knows. I will add the page to my watchlist and keep an eye on it Athenean (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the contribution and comment. Much appreciated. We'll probably be discussing spliting the article soon. See you there. Masri145 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you very much! Athenean (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Synderalla45
"Also note, everyone, Synderella is a sock of a banned user, please do not engage them, rather, their comments should be ignored if not removed (I always prefer to just ignore)." If Synderalla45 is in fact a sock, we should have this account blocked. Can you help me put together an SPI case? Do you know which banned user is the puppet master here? Rich wales (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I am certain he is a sock of User:Brasilian Prince, who is in turn is a sock of another account, but I don't know who. I can and will definitely help with the SPI. You can also ask Dr. K., he is more familiar with this fellow than I am. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Brasilian Prince is a sock of Justice Forever.  In general, BTW, you can search all sockpuppet investigations (including archives) by going to WP:SPI and using the search box at the very bottom of the page.  I've had dealings with Justice Forever before — in particular, with one of his socks (Nestera) that I may have given much more benefit of the doubt than I should have.  I've asked Dr.K. for his opinion; I guess we'll see how it goes from there.   Rich wales (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since last time I opened an SPI, all socks of JusticeForever were stale and could not be checked through CU, I now opened a new branch of the JfE SPI franchise: Sockpuppet investigations/Brasilian Prince. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good move. Thanks a lot. Athenean (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome Athenean. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple question
why are you deleting my edit on Alexander III the Great, it's not vandalism at all, it's just the Name of Alexander the Great written on Macedonian language nothing to it. --Vasil1234 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Minorities in Greece". Thank you. --Filanca (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last edits
Hi. The sentence on the 2 seats in the amphictiony, which I belive you originally added implies that this signified a kind of acceptance of Macedonians to the Hellenes, however, Badian saw it as a personal homage to Phillip II. That's the significance

Your subsequent edit, re: the doubtfulness of Alexander's participation in Olympics is not only Asirvatham, but also Badian (in Macedonians & Greeks passim). Would you kindly re-modify your edits accordingly ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * and I see you've taken an interest on South Slavs article. Good to see you don;t seem to have a problem with my adding new 'interpretations' supporting less migration and more population continuity in the medieval Balkans, incl Greece. Thus you should not see me following the same methods and similar type of evidence for Macedonia in ancient times as "denialist" Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will modify my edits accordingly, thanks for taking the time to explain. It does seem we are on the same page on South Slavs, which is great. I absolutely hate disputes, as much as I am tenacious once they begin. Not sure I understand your last point though. What do you mean by "denialist"? Athenean (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean, I think you'll find that the entire narrative of the Macedonian expansion will change soon; as more and more archaeolgical excavations continue in the region. This will reveal, as it is already beginning to, that the picture painted by Thucydides' story of conquest is not correct. The Thucydidean expansion story likely functioned to serve as propaganda created by the Argeads themselves to 'demonstrate' their power and links to old traditions, eg imagery of sun- cult, Herakles, goat-herding, etc. The archaeological material points to, by and large, significant continuity in Macedonia from Bronze Age into Hellenistic period- incl Vergina & "Old Macedonia". There is no expulsion of populations,of course there was some conflict. Nor did the Argeads migrate from some peripheral 'highland' region, rather they took power as foremost family amongst a coalition of regional rulers throughout the region, and were very probably "natives" of Vergina. The very period which this occured from latter 6th century, as this is when we see a rapid socio-economic acceleration in the region, in turn, associated with many processes. The study of early history will take on the form of analysing processes and less on trying to put on ethnic labels on this or that. Rather there was a "coming together" of disparate communities into Macedonians, which also came to be part of a broader Hellenic and Greek peoples during the late Archaic period, just as this process had begun in central & southern Greece from the 8th century or so. This in turn is separate to the question of what exact langauge was spoken in this or that region in x or y time Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree at all, however, archeology is one of those fields where things change at a glacial pace. It's likely that it may turn out as you say, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Athenean (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You might well be correct. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits
This is your account? Majuru (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Sulmues
I see the 6-month 1RR restriction that started in October 2010. But I don't see evidence in his block log of a current block or ban; have there been further restrictions? - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He is indef banned from WP:AE due to disruption and incivility. The reason he socked is so as to wipe clean his history of disruption, which we know bothers him a great deal []. Completely unacceptable. Athenean (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you have a link to the indef AE ban, by chance?  I want to see if there's any hope here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't, and there isn't. None whatsoever, I'm speaking from experience. Just looking at the Jovan Vladimir FAC, he managed to disrupt it through sheer incompetence. And that doesn't even get into the edit-warring and gross incivility . Athenean (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Courtesy note:

Re. the disagreement listed on Dispute resolution noticeboard.

I hope I can help resolve this; I want to mediate this dispute.

I would appreciate it if you could check on that page regularly over the coming days. I will be adding comments there very soon; you do not need to respond to them, but I hope you will.

Please try to keep your responses as short as possible, and to-the-point; let's not create pages of pointless waffle.

We all want to make Wikipedia a better "source of all knowledge", so please let us try to remember that that is the primary objective.

Thank you for your kind attention.  Chzz  ► 11:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece
Hi.

The following probably does not require action from you at this time, but I am writing to you in order to keep you informed;

In relation to the dispute, I have suggested to that we try to break down the specific changes they'd like, so that we can look at each in turn.

I would like to form these 'proposed changes' through separate talkpage discussion for now, then we could post them to the dispute discussion later - as smaller, simple requests saying e.g. "We should move XXX header to above YYY header", "We should add THIS SPECIFIC TEXT (or, with a diff of some removed text), and so forth.

I hope that might aid progress, by breaking the problem down and discussing each in turn.

I think that at this point, it is Filanca that wants changes - however, if there are any specific edits that you'd like to discuss (changing the current version), then please let me know, here, and those could be incorporated. Similarly, if you think this idea is not helpful, or seek clarification, please just let me know here on your own talk page - I'll check back.

Thanks very much,  Chzz  ► 05:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "Balkan" and the term "balcony" have the same root in that persian word (بالكانه bālkāneh).
OK, my mistake. Can I say "a few times". And that is not my original research. There are many of etymological explanations. Every etymological explanation of the term "Balkan" is linguistic (bulgarian, turkish, persian, etc.). The claim that is the persian word, is just equally correct as the other claims are. You can prefer turkish explaination, but I still claim that the term "Balkan" came from persian language. The term "Balkan" and the term "balcony" have the same root in that persian word (بالكانه bālkāneh). UKscientist (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Two things: One, you need a reliable source for that. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. You should present your source in the talkpage, so that other users can check it out. Second, provided you have a reliable source, you can add the Persian etymology to the "Etymology" section, that's what it is for. But you cannot add it in the lede. The lede is meant to be a summary of the whole article, not go into details. I hope that helps. Athenean (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for help. Here is a reliable source http://books.google.com/books?id=-EuFwLQhvYMC&pg=PA27&dq=balkans+etymology+persian&hl=en&ei=Xgm4TqebCpSy8QORstjoBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=balkans%20etymology%20persian&f Who do you like more, Persians or Turks ? UKscientist (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The source does indeed appear reliable, good work. You should mention it in the article talkpage for other users to see, and when the article is no longer protected, I would support that it be added it to the etymology section. Athenean (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a Sisyphean task, because the article is protected. I am pleased that someone have believed me. Thanks anyway. UKscientist (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Post your proposal with the source in the article talkpage, as you have done here. As long as you propose to make the addition in the etymology section rather than the lede, I think most users would support it. Best, Athenean (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul Pogrom
Please do not try to push your own POV. The atrocities committed against Greeks in Cyprus has nothing to do with that section of the article. If you find the source biased then you should delete the 12 thousand Greeks being deported out as well. Let's not have double standards. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the one pushing POV. You use non-neutral sources, who use non-neutral language, and then you insist on using their non-neutral language in Wikipedia. Nationalist authors can write whatever they like, but in Wikipedia we must adhere by NPOV. Either use neutral sources, or if you must use non-neutral sources, you must use neutral language. Anyway, using a Turkish nationalist source to try and "justify" the expulsion of Greeks from Istanbul is the height of POV-pushing, and unacceptable. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Calm down. It's very royal of you to argue like that. Neither the author nor the language is non-neutral. Ethnicity doesn't make someone automatically non-neutral nor just because the word "atrocities against Turkish Cypriots" is used makes it non-neutral. You're trying to push your own POV behind the curtain of NPOV. The source does not justify anything. Atrocities on an island hundreds of kilometers away does not justify expulsion of people in a city. Mentioning the reason for why the Turkish government reacted in such a way is important and saying that they did it because of the inter-communal violence is misleading as it gives the impression that 12 thousand Greeks were expelled because Turks attacked on Greeks as well and that's absurd. Saying that Turkey expelled 12 thousand Greeks due to Greek atrocities on Turkish Cypriots of Cyprus is completely a neutral language. So, please calm down and take a break from this POV push and obvious bias that is visible in your "edit summary" tab. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this "calm down" advice the standard advice to editors who don't agree with you? Also here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything productive to say other than to personally attack me? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please calm down. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because an author chooses to use graphic language, doesn't mean we have to follow it in wikipedia. Rather, the opposite. Authors are not bound to follow NPOV, but here on wikipedia, we are. "Greek atrocities" is unnecessarily graphic and inflammatory, there is simply no need to use it when we can can use Cypriot intercommunal violence. That's why that article is named as such, and not Atrocities by Greek and Turkish Cypriots against each other. Athenean (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing graphic about the word atrocities. You're simply trying to clean Greeks from any negative connotations. What you basically accomplished today is to push the Greek POV to favor one document over the other while adding ambiguity to the article by saying "tensions over the Cyprus issue" rather than saying "atrocities committed against Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus" as it tells to the reader that Turkey deported Greeks of Istanbul because of Turks attacking Greeks and Greeks attacking Turks(the first part is the absurd part). As you said, this is Wikipedia and there should be NPOV. Not your POV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great
Hi there, I thought I'd let you know I re-nominated Alexander the Great for GA status. I've done a lot of work on the article in recent months, adding sections on generalship and Macedon during Alexander's absences, as well as beefing up the Legacy section and adding lots of citations. I think it will pass this time. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just had a quick glance, and it looks impressive. I think you've done some excellent work there. Unfortunately I can't keep up with my present commitments, so I am unable to deal with any further requests at the moment. Good luck. And if the GA is still open in a couple of weeks time I should be able to tackle the review.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I put a lot of work into it. Unfortunately the GAN seems to have stalled for no apparent reason, and I doubt it will resume any time soon. So if you find some time to look into it a couple of weeks from now that would be fantastic. Athenean (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Has discussed changing the citations to use template:harvnb? I know some editors don't like the template, so wanted to check the changes were supported. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's fine by me. Athenean (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Developed Country
Hi Athenian. Something needs to be done with this article. The specific user, continues to revert, soon he will break the 3RR rule. Its seems he will continue to revert.Nochoje (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Athenian. There is another "wannabe" vandal in the above article. Your help please.Nochoje (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece - case closed?
Hi.

Because has not edited in over a month, and did not yet respond to this query, I am going to consider this 'case closed', for now. Of course, it could be re-opened, if necessary, at a future date - just that I am going to stop checking back for updates. I have advised Filanca that, if xe wishes to resume discussions, xe should post a new thread on WP:DRN. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus
Hi Athenean. You were involved in the lengthy discussions to shape the lead section. There are some changes currently being discussed. I was wondering if you have an opinion on the proposed changes. Masri145 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I'll try to take a look sometime tonight. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Macedonia naming dispute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links to Philip of Macedon and Stip


 * Republic of Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Philip of Macedon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Greek minority in Albania
The link brought the reader to the previous page, with a single lower number, but you have a point about the paragraph at the top of the following page. I've responded in greater detail on the article talk page Talk:Albania about why we should not use it. Jd2718 (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Seems you offered the best Christmass present to WPGR. Alexander a GA, that's rocking news! Hope we see this article one day on the main page.Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Unfortunately it seems we have quite a bit of troll activity lately. Athenean (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems the same team of indef-blocked users has taken action this period. Remember that cu records of Sulmues, Pakashem, Guildenrich have been stored, so a spi would easily solve this minor discrepancy.Alexikoua (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, Sulmues here. I trust all is well with you. Just to clarify, I have nothing to do with the trolling occurred at Alexander, and would like to wish you a Happy 2012! Sulmues1 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)