User talk:Nipsonanomhmata/Archive 1

Greetings!
Greetings mate!

It's a very unexpected but also a very pleasant surprise to see a person I never had encountered during any of my edits paying attention and having a word to say :). Thank you very much! It is, in fact, a big encouragement...

My best regards!

Aregakn (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images
Please see WP:NFC and meta:Resolution:Licensing policy. We have a long-standing policy that portraits of people who are still alive are automatically, with very few exceptions, deemed replaceable, because it would always be possible to meet the person in question and take a new photograph of them. Note that the operative criterion is not whether a replacement readily exists, but whether one could be created in principle. You could of course try to contact the person in question and ask them to donate a photograph for Wikipedia under a free license, or try and see if there might be a photograph of him created by NASA, in which case we could use it under PD-USGov. The present photograph has no chance of staying in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: there is in fact a free image (taken of him at a slightly younger age) at . Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen photographs like this one but they are not representative because he doesn't look like that anymore. Thanks for trying. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since his encyclopedia article is meant to remain representative of him not just right now, but for a long time to come (including a time when he may no longer be alive), showing him at any one particular period of his life may be not quite such a high priority. But whatever our preferences on that, the point is just that according to our policies, we are simply not at liberty to choose a non-free image over a free one. As you may have noticed, the non-free image has been deleted again, predictably, so it's that other one or none at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's strange that NASA photos are allowed and those at Johns Hopkins, Applied Physics Laboratory, Space, which is sponsored by NASA, are not. The Civilian Space department is wholly sponsored by government. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, it might be worth having a closer look at the copyright notes of that website then. If they operate under the federal government rules, they usually say something to that effect somewhere (like, on the NASA page, here: ). If the university website turns out to have a similar declaration, that would change the situation, of course. I had just assumed it was non-free since you declared it as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Cassini project was wholly sponsored by NASA and there are already Cassini images being used on Wikipedia. Such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cassini-science-br.jpg. However, I can't find a general image use policy on the Applied Physics Laboratory website. I have found image use policy on some of the projects which allows images to be used when crediting APL. But none generic that would cover a photograph in a CV. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * btw Your presence on my talk page is unwelcome. I note that you continue to appear on pages that are mentioned on my talkpage and, like a stalker, you go out of your way to follow me around. Moreover, I also note the multiple twinkling of my contributions by you. I suggest that you stay away from me because I am maintaining a record of all future events. Figuratively speaking, your nose has been stuck up my large intestine for far too long. I strongly recommend that you keep it out! Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cretan islands
Hello, and happy holidays! Kudos to you too for writing these articles. However, I don't really understand what you mean by comparing "nysada" and "nisada". What have these names to do with Gianysada? Constantine  ✍  09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year. "nisida" is the word for islet. "Gianisida" and "Dionisades" are words that end with islet or islets. However, with the word "Dionysades" the word "Dionysus" is integrated with "nisades". Hence, it blurs the distinction. But with "Gianisada" the distinction is still clear and should end with "nisada". And to be honest so should "Dionisades". But I understand the Wikipedia policy that what is most common on Google is always right. In that case it can be argued that "nisida" is much more common than "nysida" and that "nisida" or "nisada" should be adopted on a wholesale basis.


 * I have to say that it has been hard work creating the articles because there is almost no information on most of these islands and islets. Wikipedia.gr and Wikipedia.de were good sources in some cases (especially for existing photos). I think that I've got to the point that I can't write any more. But I'll keep trying to see what I can find. It's quite interesting and educational because I knew nothing about any of these islands and there are quite a few amazing islands. Especially Chrysi. I think that a couple of new categories need to be created so that the islands and islets in the Aegean can be segregated from those in the Libyan sea so that the islands and islets in the Aegean can be included in to the Aegean sea category in a group and ditto in a new category for the Libyan sea. But I am not sure how to categorise the islands and islets to the east and to the west, north and south are obvious, but east and west require a bit more thought because they could be classified as being in both the Aegean and the Libyan seas. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello! Yes, nisida is "islet", but it does not follow that any name with it or variants thereof has anything to do with "island". Dionysades is straightforward, it comes from Dionysos, it has nothing to do with "nisades", which does not exist in Greek. Gianysada also has no apparent relation with "nisida". Its weird spelling with the hypsilon alone precludes this, it must be a corrupted form of an earlier name. "Nysida" or "nisada" don't exist as words in Greek. Please don't confuse English transliterations, which often blur the distinctions between the various vowels, with the actual Greek words. For the categories, as a rule of thumb I'd suggest to avoid over-doing it with pedantic divisions: the islands are rather obscure, a simple category "Cretan islands" or the likes would suffice. Happy New Year to you too! Constantine  ✍  15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of clergymen
Hi, I started a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), your input is welcome. J04n(talk page) 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Paleokastro
Well, the full form for this name is actually Palaiokastro ("old castle"), with Paliokastro as a vernacular alternative. As both forms are rather common throughout Greece, disambiguation is certainly needed (I'd put the main dab page at Palaiokastro (disambiguation). Constantine  ✍  07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How's that for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaiokastro_(disambiguation) ? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the link
Hello. I read the discussion. It is obvious that all this promotes the business called "TRNC" as you state and aims to a plenitude of articles related to it

( The argument of the other side states that they are two different cases the represantation in the United States and in the United Nations )

I dont think we can make a lot of things, delete for example, cause of the "liberal status" of wikipedia. But it must be clear that TRNC is an illegal state in Cyprus and recognized only by Turkey

I prefered not to get involved to the discussion cause I am not so experienced in cases like this Thank you for the invite Greco22 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's ok. I appreciate you making the effort. If you feel the urge you may always choose to vote though and your reason can be short. You can say something like: " Delete Both offices represent the same commercial entity. There is no value-added by listing both offices in separate articles in Wikipedia."


 * Although, I fully understand if you decide not to vote. I too use to avoid these issues. The trouble is that we are all avoiding these issues and somebody has to take a stand (specially since we are in the right). Just like Daskalogiannis I will be skinned. But such is life. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hehe you are right. Doesnt need so much labour and time ;)
 * Thanks for your help, I will vote
 * Greco22 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that very much. Thank you. :-) Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hei Daskalogiannis! :D I voted. Take also a look here if you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greeks I would appreciate if you could give me a hand. You can put it also to other editors of Greek topics, if you know some, who didnt had an idea abt this project. Greco22 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I had a good read of the talk that you suggested. I don't know what I can contribute. There are some pretty cool editors in there that you have picked an argument with. It's not a subject that is worth arguing about. We don't gain anything by changing a few images. Just some advice about your comments. I recommend that you personally delete the "mafioso" comment (use "deleted own comment" in the summary) on Italiano's talk page (because it leaves a trail that other editors will pick up) similarly I recommend deleting and not ever using "wtf"s because there are some editors that will collect all those instances and then use them to block you. They always appear when you least need them to appear. Wikipedia is full of people from a wide range of backgrounds. You never know if you are talking to a 14 year old or an 80 year old lawyer with three PhDs. It's important to always be polite and it requires a lot of discipline. Be polite with all of those guys on that page because you may need their help in the future. If anybody upsets you for any reason then don't respond for at least 24 hours. Give yourself time to chill and think. The same words can come across differently to different readers (some will ignore and others will get upset) so it's best not to give them any ammunition. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices, they are really useful (It was my mistake with the little italiano :) ) But it is difficult to be always calm cause there are many "strange" guys around who get upset when you disagree with them For example, if you saw the discussion with Periptero, this guy brought some personalities and wanted to put them with a collage in the article  of Greeks

Fine, I dont see anything wrong. But he decided alone that after 5 or 6 days the discussion was over! just to promote his favours When I commented that this is wrong, he got freaky and you can see who started to be offensive! (believe me it was not me) In an autistic way he repeats "voting(!) is over". Do you think this is fair? Greco22 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't always fair. But most of the time its best to let things go. When there is an important issue such as the "Representative Offices" issue. It's worth taking a polite stand. Reverting edits is the easiest way to get blocked. Never revert more than twice on the same content. I was blocked for taking a stand on a really insignificant piece of information. Now the editor that blocked me follows me around like a predator waiting for me to make another mistake. When you are blocked once it is very much easier to get blocked a second time. Which means that you have to be even more careful and even more polite to avoid trouble. At the end of the day if people revert half of all my edits that still means that I will have made a useful contribution. However, there are vengeful editors who once they block you go around reverting almost everything that you have ever contributed. I have found that if you have good quality references to back up your edits that generally people tend to leave you alone. For example, there are scholars who have documented that "Ataturk" was a "pederast". So using those scholarly quotations it is possible to add that information to articles concerning the personal life of Ataturk. However, when you put your nose in a hornets nest you can guarantee that the hornets will follow you around giving you a hard time (and those hornets are intelligent). So tread carefully. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am interested more in images, photos from Greek topics etc...Thats why I insist in cases like these

Of course I do not spend all my time in wiki-wars. If they want a kitsch and funny collage (which also isnt representative), let them have it :)... Unfortunately I see that I can not change their mind Greco22 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That is best. Let them do what they want with it. To be honest I think that another editor that doesn't like image galleries is likely to delete it anyway. So it really is pointless. I've found that introducing images to Wikipedia is really hard work. It involves a lot of form filling. I think that I have managed to introduce only one image that was kept. The other five were deleted. So I gave up and don't try to introduce images anymore. It requires too much effort and the odds of them being kept are not good. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean to upload or to put them in the articles? Anyway you are right abt the uploading. I uploaded some flags of the revolution and the rules are strict. Now abt the Greek topics I can say that all my decorations are kept, maybe the aesthetic result is good and is liked by many editors Greco22 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, to upload is really hard work. Adding them to the articles when they are already uploaded is easy. I have been working on the islands surrounding Crete and I've been really lucky because there are quite a lot of images of these islands already uploaded in to Wikipedia. Mostly by German Wikipedians who have done a really great job. I think that you have found a strength that is really useful. Many articles do not have images and need them badly. Getting the right images in the right articles is a very useful contribution. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you r from Crete? Greco22 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I try not to divulge any personal information on Wikipedia because it is picked on by nasty editors and stomped on. I like to visit beautiful places like the islands. Daskalogiannis is an individual that I can relate to just as is Evangelis Zappas and Alexander Ypsilantis. There were fewer than a handful of islands listed for Crete so I have listed almost all of them. Just a few more to do. Quite a lot of work and a lot of patience. Greece is unjustly under-represented on Wikipedia in comparison to neighbouring countries. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please stop canvassing the Articles for deletion/Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York. You have been systematically going round contacting people you thought were likely to support your position. This is highly frowned upon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wetman was a neutral participant. I had no idea how he would comment. What I have done is limited and open and as such is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia's rules. Besides you leave me no choice since you are rarely reasonable or easy to communicate with. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Samaras
Thanks for your kind words and also for your contributions to the article. Pointer1 (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish War(1919-1922)
I noticed your concerns on this article. I have posted a possible compromise on the talk page if you are interested. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI
See WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

TRNC Presidents
Your nominations were disruptive and were liable to stir up ethnic and nationalistic strife and trouble. If you can't deal with TRNC articles' notability dispassionately and according to wikipedia guidelines then I suggest you don't look at them and certainly don't nominate them for deletion. If this continues.. well.. I'm sure you get the message. Spartaz Humbug! 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are an admin and I respect what you are saying. My nominations were according to Wikipedia guidelines. Is there anything that I said whatsoever that could be construed as otherwise? The notability of all the articles nominated was questionable. I'll gladly renominate anyway you like. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Renominate it if you want a block. Seriously, you are suggesting that the office of president of the TRNC isn't notable????? Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only within the sphere of influence of the Republic of Turkey (namely: Turkey and the TRNC) is the office of the president recognised. It is not recognised anywhere else. But that is not the point. I legitimately nominated the articles because there are a lack of independent citations. All of the citations used are from Turkish (or TRNC) websites or articles. Doesn't that concern you? Just the other day somebody nominated a footballer for deletion because they thought that the footballer was only notable within his home country. The fact that the footballer was a notable international was ignored. These "presidents" are only notable within the Republic of Turkey and the TRNC. Nowhere else are they called "presidents" or treated as such. So I ask you again. What exactly is the problem with the nominations? Why can't there be more independent citations that backup their presidential claims. Surely, that is only a good thing Wikipedia-wise? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What does TRNC being recognised as an independent state have to do with the subject meeting the GNG? When the mayor and councillors of a city are presumed to be notable what guideline were you referring to suggest that the president of TRNC doesn't meet our inclusion standard? What about the president of Taiwan? Shall we delete that one two and maybe Mao Tse Tung should have been deleted for the period when everyone recognised the nationalist government in Taipai instead of the communist one in Peking. Blimey!  Spartaz Humbug! 17:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I nominate someone as the President of the Grand Canyon and write an article for them on Wikipedia and back it up with references from local newspapers. You would consider that to be a legitimate article? I think that you would consider that to be a hoax. What exactly is the difference between "President of the Grand Canyon" and "President of the TRNC"? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you got an actual country to recognize your claim, yeh, that would be notable! :) --Errant (chat!) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No country has recognised the TRNC other than the country that created it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the nominations was that there were no independent citations for those articles. I find it difficult to understand how a footballer can be deleted when there are only citations from within their own country but "Presidents" are exempt from the same requirement. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Nipson, the TRNC may be unrecognized, but it exists, whether we like it or not, for what is almost 30 years now. Whatever the status of its (non-)recognition, no footballer ever sat along with the President of Cyprus and the UN General Secretary at a negotiation table as an equal partner. The office, the state, the articles on its presidents, prime ministers etc are notable and necessary for any encyclopedia, just as we have articles on South Ossetia or the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. You've been warned before on trying to impose your specific POV on certain issues (the Olympics and their origin), so you should know by now that what seems "evident" to you may not be that "evident" to everyone else. I think you can contribute much to WP, but please stop with the WP:TRUTH-campaigning. Constantine  ✍  11:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment was unnecessary and there are inaccuracies in your comment. There is only one President of the island of Cyprus and that is the President of the Republic of Cyprus. The United Nations only recognises the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the United Nations has no diplomatic relations whatsoever with the occupied part of Cyprus (the United Nations communicates only with the Republic of Turkey). Moreover, I nominated the articles for wholly legitimate and non-POV reasons, within Wikipedia rules, and in good faith. I was expecting an intelligent consideration of "the lack of independent citations" and not a hysterical kick-in about POVs. The article "President of Northern Cyprus" still has no citations to back it up. Moreover, none of the "Presidents" have independent citations outside of the sphere of influence of the Republic of Turkey. You are telling me that I am imposing a specific POV on certain issues. However, why is it that I feel that POVs are being imposed on me? Consensus in the real world on the issue of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is clear. However, in the fairy-tale fiction-land of Wikipedia the consensus is entirely contrived and wholly represents the POV of the Republic of Turkey. You keep reminding me of the fruitless time I spent discussing the Olympics with you and a couple of others. Despite that I successfully introduced, with consensus, 99 per cent of all that I discussed concerning the Olympics. I introduced worthy historical fact (and the facts are that no Original Research or POV was involved). I have to admit that I do not enjoy editing on Wikipedia. I would rather have my eyes poked at an Optician and my teeth pulled at a Dentist than waste my valuable time having useful, non-original work, reverted without a bonafide reason and without worthy discussion. Moreover, I am still relatively inexperienced in Wikipedia and like a child I accidentally test the limits of what is and what is not possible. However, unlike a child I have come to expect a hysterical kick-in as the norm whenever I blindly stumble across new frontiers. Thank you all for making me feel so welcome. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nipson, sorry if you feel offended... The fact is that you go about each and every subject with enthusiasm but also with an apparent single-mindedness and zealotry with regards to your own viewpoint. All I am saying is that you should try to be less confrontational and not reject others' opinions out of hand when they disagree with you. The TRNC exists as a de facto state for decades now. We cannot close our eyes to that fact, no matter what its legal status or its dependence on Turkey, and these are the main arguments you used in your AfDs, not lack of citations (which in itself is not a criterion for article deletion). WP follows standard practice in including these articles (check other sources like the BBC or Britannica and you'll see that they too mention the TRNC and its "presidents", even if in parentheses or quotation marks or by variant terms like North Cyprus etc). Would you also accuse WP of representing Greek POV because it has an article on the Republic of Pontus, which was arguably even less of a real state than the TRNC has been? For better or worse, WP has to accommodate all POVs (minus the most extreme ones) in an attempt to be neutral and not to pass judgment. Constantine  ✍  13:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel it is the other way around since I am prepared to discuss and accept others arguments (when their arguments are logical and backed up with good references). I think you already know that because I challenge very few of your edits and I actually appreciate your input and corrections because the vast majority are helpful. But as is always the way with electronic communications you find that when you write something down and you think you have expressed yourself clearly that somebody else comes along and interprets what you have said in a completely different way. Or they see something in what you've said that you'd never thought of and then it all kicks off. In my AfDs the main arguments were "lack of citations", "non-independent citations" or "citations limited to a sphere of influence". Those are perfectly acceptable arguments. Despite having expressed myself clearly others appeared to focus on other things. Around a third of all the AfDs appear to have been accepted and agreed. That's a pretty good success rate for someone that submitted their first AfD this week. In response to your last question. At least there was a Kingdom of Pontus and there used to be a majority population of christians, where that Kingdom once was, at the beginning of the 20th Century. The occupied territory however has never been, and will never be, anything more than a very expensive to maintain de-facto. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my AfDs the main arguments were "lack of citations", "non-independent citations" or "citations limited to a sphere of influence".; our policy is ambiguous over this (apart from lack of citations) deliberately. WP:V is carefully worded, in particular, to avoid the argument of "limited sphere of influence". Much of the content here on the Wiki is sourced to the Western locality; does that affect it's global notability? Many articles on, say, UK law are cited to purely British sources and so on. As we live in these regions it is something of a systematic bias that steps us seeing this. You are, of course, correct that limited scope of sources presents a problem at some discrete level, one we reach by vague and broad consensus. There is a much better written (than my explanation) essay at WP:ITSLOCAL which discusses this problem. Compare the TRNC to the unrecognised micro-nations of Sealand, that article is very much encyclopaedic (every recent encyclopaedia I have includes it...) and yet under your rationale it is not something we should include. WP:UNKNOWNHERE has some more comments along this vein; which raises the main point I want to make - In Cyprus this is very much a notable and significant topic of interest. We are as much an encyclopaedia for them as for the US, UK, France, Germany.... etc. --Errant (chat!) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful para. I've never said that it should be excluded. But I think that it is only reasonable to expect that real world consensus is reflected in these articles and not the POV of a sphere of influence controlled by one country. I am not against micro-nations being listed either as long as it is clearly stated that is what they are. In fact, I think that it is cute that so much effort goes in to creating them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd probably agree in part with what you are saying - apart from the bios the list of presidents and the article about the president is probably best merged into the TRNC article. It is so light on content as to be better part of the wider article (and redirected to the specific section) --Errant (chat!) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The part that I don't understand is as follows. The real world consensus is that these men that are called "Presidents" on Wikipedia, in the case of the "TRNC", are not Presidents. What I don't understand is why that real world consensus is not reflected on Wikipedia. I thought that by encouraging citations to be introduced in to these articles that the word "President" or "Presidents" would have to be changed to reflect real world consensus. I can always live in hope that real world consensus matters. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On ANI, again
New thread: WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Santorini. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Yet another over-reaction. Either I did break the 3RR rule OR I didn't break the 3RR rule. Which is it? Personally, I don't think that I have. But I will go and take another look. Just in case. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have double-checked and I clearly have not broken the 3RR rule. Nor did I show any tendency or intention to do so. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've given the diffs at ANI. You haven't broken it yet, you are at 3RR hence the warning, one more gets you blocked. And it doesn't mean that after 24 hours you can revert again 3 times, by the way. --Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't planning to. Would you be kind enough to incorporate that BBC TV reference though with the other documentaries. It seems a shame to waste a good reference. Many thanks. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD Bundling
Hey,

Seeing that you're new to the AfD process I thought I would drop you a friendly note regarding bundling. Bundling two together is really only meant for two very, very similar articles that have the exact same problems (a relevant example would be the NC mission in New York with an article about a NC mission in some other city). If you have doubts about putting two together it's better to just list them separately (especially if it's only two or three articles). It's much easier to bundle a couple of AfD discussions than to unbundle them. Ravendrop (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ravendrop I appreciate your advice. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Be cautious when invoking the law
I noticed this edit, and was concerned. No Legal Threats is a rule which prevents us from using legal threats as a way of getting our own way in content disputes, and in my opinion, this edit summary could be seen as doing that. It would be better and more effective to focus on whether or not this link is a reliable source of information that Wikipedia can reasonably use to verify information for an article. I've opened a section on the talk page for such a discussion. If there really is a United States law which prohibits Wikipedia from linking to this particular web site, I strongly suggest that you only bring it up again with a link to a copy of that law. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No legal threat was made or intended. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Somalian Genocide
Good points; thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Genocide is a tough subject. It should only really be discussed by experts who understand it intimately.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 13:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

/* Ranatalwar */
Hello dear, Thank you for adding something good for my article.

I am glad that at least some one had done it.

I will find more news paper links as i was lacking time yesterday i could not do it.

Please if you are administrator and extend the time of deletion.

Thank you --Ranatalwar (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear I think the article Ranvir Kumar Singh is a notable person and if you agree please advice me how can i keep the article.

--Ranatalwar (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I am not an admin. All you need to do is link to some articles in some good quality newspapers or publications that talk about him. Maybe an interview. Unfortunately, his own website has been blocked on Wikipedia because it was used too many times to support articles.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello and Thank You
Dear,

Thank You for Editing my artile and finding the references.

I love the way you have added his own site references.

Also You are a good person and positive i guess i have seen your work on wiki.

Thank you and If you can get the artile removed from deletion then i will be grateful.

If you know any admin.

Noow that you have made it well informed and well conecyed.

Thank you again and good luck. --Ranatalwar (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Dear Can you Please review the article some user is just deleting content i dont know what to say.

Can you please take uu this article further

As i am a new user and does not know much about wiki.

But one thing i am sure there are 100 s off article without references

I dont know what to do..

Any ways i will leave you with this.

Thank you for concern and help.

--Ranatalwar (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some user" is me.
 * Ranatalwar, I explained clearly at WP:Articles for deletion/Ranvir Kumar Singh why I deleted the content, and just a few minutes ago you replied "I can see the diffrence i will update accordingly Thank you for informantion".  I'm trying to WP:Assume good faith here, but you're not making it easy. If you disagree with the deletions I made, please explain your reasoning at the AFD. Borkificator (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Borkificator is being helpful because they are making positive contributions to the article. I think that the article is a whole lot better than it was. Others will help to make it better over time.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I am not sure what is the theory you had in mind but thank you for your tact and kindness. I apologise again for the hard task of reverting you. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is in the last couple of edits at Artsakh Air. Was just wondering why the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was being referred to as anything other than a "de facto state". So I tested the theory on Northern Cyprus (it seemed the obvious thing to do).  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detail. I had almost forgotten about Nagorno-Karabakh. I guess these kinds of problems have a tendency to persist for a long time. It's always tough to balance the NPOV of these articles. I'm not a big contributor to the Northern Cyprus article. But I have a few points that I occasionally check. One thing I don't enjoy is revert users whom I respect. It just so happened that I did this twice today and in the same article. Not good. But that's Wikipedia for you. You take the good with the bad. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise. I'd rather be reverted by you than anybody else.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am honoured. Thank you for the courtesy. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Rescue
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the rescue tag. What purpose could there possibly be in both and ? Either you think the article should be deleted, or you think it shouldn't be deleted. You can't take both contrary positions simultaneously. Snotty Wong  gossip 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. I nominate an article for rescue and instead of rescuing it you usually come along and vote Delete. So I thought let's nominate an article that I think should be deleted instead. But ofcourse you voted Keep.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, please assume good faith. I don't vote to delete all articles that are tagged for rescue.  I evaluate each one individually and give my opinion.  Just because you tag an article for rescue doesn't obligate me to rescue it or to !vote to keep it.  Secondly, I didn't actually vote to keep Ali Progri, I only added a comment.  Thirdly, please don't disrupt WP to make a point.  Your explanation above seems to indicate that you nominated the article for deletion and tagged it for rescue as a kind of experiment to see how people would vote.  This is disruptive and inappropriate.  AfD already consumes a lot of time from many editors, there's no need to add to the time consumed unnecessarily with these kinds of actions.  I'd suggest that you immediately either remove the rescue tag (if you still think the article should be deleted) or withdraw the deletion nomination (if you don't think it should be deleted).  Snotty Wong   yak 19:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the rescue tag as suggested. I will never use the rescue tag ever again.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your choice. To be clear, I'm not asking you to never use the rescue tag again, just to refrain from using the rescue tag on articles that you yourself have nominated for deletion.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 21:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no benefit in using the rescue tag when articles can be condemned. It's like calling for an ambulance and getting a bullet in the head instead.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Werner Raffetseder
Could you please explain why Werner Raffetseder should not be deleted in your opinion? "I like it" is usually not considered a valid rational. --bender235 (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is a multimedia talent who has been published numerous times, has appeared on television a number of times, he has won an award, he has setup an organisation to promote what he is most interested in, he even organised a Concorde flight so that an eclipse could be observed for a longer period of time. How much notability do you need?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cycle races in Greece
Hi, I will next make an article for the Tour of Rhodes which was a semi-important race a few years ago. I have been looking for some more races, but I can't find any race which was UCI listed for more than a year :/ If you know of any which have had an impact beyond the national scene in the post-war era, let me know and I will look into them :) SeveroTC 19:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Severo. Unfortunately, I know very little about cycle races in Greece.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, well I'm glad we've got two to put in the category, just a little step in countering systemic bias! SeveroTC 07:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Human rights in Cyprus
I noticed you have improved the "human rights" section on the article Cyprus. Could you update the main article: Human rights in Cyprus? Dimadick (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's still lots to do but I'll do what I can. It's always nerve-wracking doing anything on the Cyprus articles. Usually everyone lays in to you like a pack of wolves even on one word changes. Thank you for your encouraging words.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 11:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fred Hagist
You !voted to delete this article but the nominator wishes to withdraw. Would you be willing to revisit this discussion and reconsider your !vote? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have revisited but I think that a Delete vote is a good idea because the article does not meet WP:GNG.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 08:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul turkish
Standard turkish is Istanbul turkish as anyone familiar with the language will assure you. I've reverted your latest edit in Cypriot Turkish. Mavros (talk)
 * Would you be kind enough to provide a reference for that? I don't see the advantage of calling it that when it only needs to be refered to as "standard Turkish".  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always check wikipedia ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language#Dialects I think there's a point identifying which dialect is the standard, the difference between Cyprus and Istanbul variants immediately make sense just because of geographical position and distance. Mavros (talk)
 * No reference backing that up either.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about you go and delete the istanbul part in the turkish language article since there is no reference and then I'm sure all turkish speaking contributors of wikipedia will be willing to come after you ;) Mavros (talk)
 * That appears to be my remit in life.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 09:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Veggos and Makronissos
Dear Nipsonanomhmata,

Regarding Thenassis Veggos' term on Makronisos between 1948 and 1950, the information you removed twice already, is verified. I can provide dozens of webpages stating proving my edited text. Veggos was 21 years old when he went to Makronisos. At that time he was a soldier. Military service as you may well know is mandatory in Greece. During that time, the military service duration was around 24 months. Hence the 1948-50. Veggos' father was indeed a communist but Veggos himself, contrary to rumors, never, ever expressed his political beliefs, not even in private. That is why he could not be accused of political bias. Because of his father's political beliefs, Veggos was sent/punished to Markonisos as a soldier, not as a prisoner. Markonisos was not inhabited solely by exiles. There was a military force on the island. Koundouros himself admitted to the above while being interviewed on TV. This interview aired only after Veggos' passing.

It is widely known in Greece that certain politics try to interpret the above events the way you edited this detail, for their own gain. I sincerely hope your editing is not motivated by your personal political views or Greek politics.

For the above reasons I believe that my contribution should be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.158.69 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that sentence and had no clue what the situation was. In that case, my apologies, could you provide two quality URL references to back this up. 99.9% of the time when Makronissos is mentioned it is because a suspected communist was banged up there. If he wasn't locked up and was one of the soldiers keeping them in then that is a different story. Do you know if the film director he met there was locked up or doing the same job as Veggos?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 20:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Veggos and Makronissos
Information on Veggos, Koundouros and the Makronissos era.

http://www.star.gr/ellada_kosmos/90180/ Translated with google translate (http://translate.google.com) and adjusted for translational errors.

Director Nikos Koundouros spoke about his friendship with Thanasis Vengos, which began in the Orders of the Exiles of Makronissos in the early 50's and lasted 70 years, in the show "It has taste" of the NET (Greek public TV channel).

The director that changed the life of the great actor mentioned the time Thanasis Vengos approached him on a hill of the island. "They (the military control of the island) thought I was an architect and I ask to opt out of living in tents. So I stayed on a hill with no trees, no shade. Eventually I saw a rag-clothed soldier, a wreck, approaching me, holding wood boards from the boxes of haddock they fed us."

"The soldier came close and threw the boards and a hammer in front of me and I thought "the comrade has gone crazy". The soldier said "You will die at night from the cold".

That's how Veggos started building a bed for Koundouros out of haddock box wood, in which the director slept with gratitude and woke up with gratitude. The director also mentioned that the soldier, Thanassis Veggos, visited the director the next day to see if he actually slept well.

"It was a golden kid. Always giving to his fellow man. I do not know anyone having innocence. Veggos has, had innocence" added Nikos Koundouros.

Returning from exile, filmmaker Nikos Koundouros did not forget Thanassis Veggos. He called him in the studio he had in Psychiko to work.

"I'd give him a 20-cent (of a drachma) coin per day. Just to ride the tram back home. Years later I found out that he never took the tram. He gave the coin to his mother in the shack where they both lived in Faliro, "says Koundouros and reveals that seeing Veggos wipe the floors, he asked him to play in the film "Magic City". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.158.69 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So ... were soldiers like Veggos prisoners on Makronisos too? Or did they use him like a prison officer? It seems hard to accept that they would just put him in with the rest of the prisoners when it was his time for military service.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 13:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:BB&amp;N Knights football coaches
Category:BB&amp;N Knights football coaches, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thodoris Moschonas
ΣΑΣ ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΥ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΒΟΗΘΕΙΑ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manos H. Scorer (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Unfortunately, I think the article will be deleted. But I tried very hard to save it. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way
You might want to read WP:EW carefully...you do not always have to reach WP:3RR in order to be blocked/warned for edit-warring. Cheers! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Many thanks.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 10:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your user page


Thank you. That's very kind of you. I was aiming for more cowbell in the images. More green stuff to reduce the carbon dioxide. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! I'm glad to see that you're reducing your carbon footprint, one cowbell at a time. :) WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

References at Erdal Gezik
You asked: the two references are good, why delete them? Well, generally, Master's theses are not considered reliable sources. According to our guideline, "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." In this case the only role of the references seems to be to attest to the existence of two publications. The first is a book, which can be found on the websites of dozens of Turkish bookstores and on Google books, so it is strange to refer to an obscure Master's thesis for this. The other one is an article; its existence is also attested, for example, by the Qoçgirî entry of Kurdica, an online Kurdish encyclopedia written in German, and several other independent sources. But actually, as long as no one doubts the existence of these publications, there is no need to provide references.

If your point in including these references is to show notability, then this does not really work; these references do not provide the "significant coverage" required for that. --Lambiam 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the details above. Yes, the only reason that I used the references was to prove the existence of the publications. There isn't enough there to prove notability. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 11:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello there! Sorry I was away to react on the articles here. I gave up, in fact, when I saw how poor the knowledge of admins is and the system, especially after the events on the Russian wikipedia (do not know if you know what I mean). I am here seldom and cannot be often anymore. But I would appreciate if you update me about and also keep me informed about what is going on here nowadays. I have even forgotten what e-mail I gave here.. Just changed it. You can write me there, ok? Regards, Aregakn (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. It's the same ol' same 'ol. I can't remember there ever being a time when minorities were not outnumbered. I have not registered an email address and do not connect email addresses with Wikipedia because Wikipedia does not respect privacy. And it doesn't take much in this Wild Wild West for a posse to be rounded up to string any one of us up for no reason at all. Wikipedia is a penal colony.   Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

image
yes, my fault. I will make a move request. Thank you for noticing it.21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

People from Constantinople/Istanbul
Don't shoot please, I merely added the categories for those people who were in the Category:Greek people from Konstantiniyye, which was deleted yesterday. Since Wikipedia uses Istanbul for the post-1453 period, that's where they belong. I mostly agree with your points on the city's name (to be fair, the Turkish name Istanbul was popularly used already long before 1453 and was semi-official during Ottoman times), but I really don't have either the mood or the time to start trying to overturn this practice. If you feel up to it, go ahead, but a word of advice: calm down. Not every problem here is the result of a conspiracy to hide or alter history. Sometimes it is the result of an awkward compromise or a simple bad call or an unchallenged POV that has become entrenched through long usage. These things can be changed and corrected, and that's one of the great things about this place. To do that however, you have to be patient and calm, you won't win any support by launching accusations of deliberate falsification of history at the first sign of a disagreeable edit... Constantine  ✍  00:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why the category "People from Constantinople" has been redirected to "Constantinopolitans". Why can't the category "People from Constantinople" be used up till the 1920s? Even the Turkish Post Office used the "Constantinople" postmark in the 1920s. "Semi-official" does not cut it. The government and the Turkish Post Office called it Constantinople in the 1920s. I'm not shooting a messenger. I'm discussing this with the person who implemented the change. Moreover, why is "Constantinopolitans" restricted to Byzantine times?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please explain why the category "People from Constantinople" has been redirected to "Constantinopolitans". I did it because the latter category was older by far and covered the same area. I "implemented" no change, I merely re-categorized some people according to Wikipedia practice. On the division between Byzantine and Ottoman Constantinople, I told you it was not my decision. Constantine  ✍  10:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet it was still called Constantinople officially throughout Ottoman times. It is too difficult for any single person to fix this issue. For the change to happen everybody must agree that there is a problem and that it needs to be fixed. I think that your edit is going to cause more problems than it solves. A lot of new editors are going to try to fix it and a lot of new editors are going to get blocked.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I told you I mostly agree with you on this, but that the other side has a valid point too, and that this division has been established by others long before I or you came along. I really don't understand what the "new editors" argument is supposed to prove: if the new editors don't go about it in a completely pig-headed way (i.e. constant reverts, failure to regard warnings and messages by other users and replying by all-caps messages "ITS REAL NAME IS CONSTANTINOPLE" etc), no, they won't be blocked. And if they are pig-headed and rude enough to get blocked, then they deserve it, whether they argue that "ISTANBUL IS CONSTANTINOPLE", "CYPRUS IS GREEK" or that "SOLUN IS MACEDONIAN" or "CHAMERIA IS ALBANIAN". I don't care what their national POV is, a troll is a troll. Anyhow, your problem is with the established division between Constantinople an Istanbul, and that a) has little to do with the categories, which follow the established division and Wikipedia guidelines and won't change until that changes b) has nothing to do with new editors (who usually don't go about adding or removing categories, unless they are experienced former users, i.e. sockpuppets, c) has nothing to do with me as I was not and am not responsible for the existence of this division an d) has everything to do with what you perceive to be the truth and want to rectify. I repeat: go to Talk:Istanbul and have it out there. You are shouting at the wrong person here. Constantine  ✍  15:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not shouting. No upper case text in my paras. As I have already said the official name was Constantinople up till the late 1920s. That's not an opinion. That's not POV. Even the Turkish government cannot deny it. To be honest, I am not prepared to have it out anywhere on this subject. Nobody else cares. Why should I?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 22:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One does not need to write in all caps to be "shouting". At least I perceive your tone as being a bit aggressive. If I am wrong, I apologize. If there were a vote on the issue, I'd vote for "Constantinople" until the end of the Ottoman era at least, but only because that was the common name in international usage and is registered that way in numerous treaties etc. The "official name" argument is true, but when you read everyday Ottoman-era documents or literature, not government correspondence or imperial edicts, the name is usually "Istanbul". And anyhow, "official names" don't carry much weight here against common usage. In the article body, there's always the expedient of linking "Constantinople" where necessary. Constantine  ✍  13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Emails do not convey tone. In email etiquette one does have to write in caps to be shouting. There is no need to apologize. I would suggest globally and internally-recognised "Constantinople" (not Istanbul) up till when the Turkish Post Office formally amended the name in the late 1920s. That's only a few years later. Up till then all mail was formally addressed to Constantinople.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to be wiser..
Please leave this article for martial artists, it has sense only for martial arts researchers and when they will see it they will decide to delete it or not, people who proposed to remove this page never even tried to understand martial arts deeply but have courage to say it has no sense or ready to delete it fastly without giving a chanse to people who know martial arts details to solve this problem.. it is clear for understandiong if you are really have education in philosophy, history and martial art technique details..anyone can remove something because he never heard about that but if someone talks about that it means it exists??!!. Do not forget wisdom please. The wikipedia policy is not everything in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFleydman1954 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a champion martial artist with a great deal of experience. The statement:
 * "'The concept of mixing the inefficient martial arts methods means to take things which can not work for you from various martial arts and apply that in a fight.'"
 * Do you seriously believe that inefficient methods or moves should be used in combat in preference to efficient moves? The sentence is utter nonsense. I doubt that it has been translated correctly.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

explanation
Hello,

I wanna say sorry for my english language. You have said that my article has no sense at all and also you have expressed idea that it's translated wrong. Please can you read it carefully with attempt to undertsand? I'll try to explain it so you will understand a sense what i've written in an article. The concept of mixing the inefficient martial arts methods means to take bad things which can not work for you from various martial arts and apply it in a fight. As for concept of mixing the medium martial arts methods it means to take "something" what lies between good and bad things...as you can see this is medium methods...Do you understand it? Please do not delete it and give time to remove it or keep it in Wikipedia. Because time is the best editor. Moreover, there will be serious martial art reseacrhers who will find it and they will decide to delete or not as they know their subject better than many editors here. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFleydman1954 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)