User talk:SotirisVa

Revert-warring
Re. Greco-Turkish relations: Please stop. Revert-wars are harmful, regardless of the merits of your case. Please read WP:3RR. You are already in violation of Wikipedia rules. Both you and Mywayyy (who is a repeat offender) have been reported and are likely to get blocked soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock Ok, deal :)
Hi Francis, I am so glad that Wikipedia has ways to deal with these revert-wars. And thank you for your personal interest. Believe me, I was NOT having fun while copy/pasting the same content ever and ever again, and I am so glad that it ended at some point for good. But I had reasons to do that. The content of this title has serious POV issues. I am new to Wikipedia, and I didn't know better than making some research and trying to correct it as much as I could. I added my POV as well, I know, but it is only because the opposite POV was already there! Besides, my grandpa's mother is Greek, I have very good Greek friends. I am ONLY against hooliganism and unsupported propoganda.

Well, my first shock is over now, and I will look for less agressive and unbiased ways to deal with this matter. I'll provide proper references, explain my modifications, and avoid copyright violations. But frankly, I don't know if my self-behaving will work if they keep on reverting the old page as it is by using various names/IPs... I am counting on the control of neutral and objective people, such as yourself.

All the Best, Soto

Ok, I'll unblock you, blocking is preventative and not punative. I'd ask that you don't revert any more and you co-ordinate with FutPerf as to improving the article, he knows what he's talking about in these areas. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help Francis. But I still look like blocked, and I can't edit the content...
 * Ah, the old autoblock trap. Happens all the time (there's a software feature that does this to your IP when you have tried to edit anonymously while your account was still blocked or something like that). Don't worry, that'll be fixed soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've gone ahead and removed the autoblock aswell. You should now be able to edit. Btw, sign your posts with ~ . - FrancisTyers · 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it works now. Let's see if ~ works for me :) SotirisVA 15:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Greek-Turkish history
Hi, I've reverted your last two edits at the Greco-Turkish relations, the one about the killings in Izmir and the one about the deportations of Pontus Greeks, but for the time being I've placed "reference needed" tags in those places. I think the factuality of these claims has a rather high probability of being well sourced - I'd suggest you ask for clarification on the talk page if you have doubts, and maybe the wording can be streamlined for NPOV, but I think outright deletion is an overreaction there. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah, 'References needed' is fair enough, I'll try to use it instead of deleting from now on (as much as I can). I am sure you are not interested in discussing this here, but it was Turkey under invasion those days. It's hard to say that Greeks or Armenians were good to Turks when they occupied Izmir (actually, I have many sources showing they didn't, but I need to organize them first), and Turks suddenly decided to kill them all when they reoccupied the city? There are plenty of propaganda websites just for this purpose, why we are still in a position to discuss them here in Wikipedia? Well, I do that only because someone has to avoid  single POV once the title is created. One last question: Is it OK, or fair, to refer websites such as the Greek Genocide link in the page? It's full of fanatism. Thanks again, SotirisVA 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think you're right, that "Greek Genocide" link should go. I remember somebody was once spamming it across dozens of articles, apparently it has stuck here. We should, wherever possible, use good peer-reviewed printed sources from established scholars. Trouble in this case is probably that even in the domain of those serious scholars, it might be difficult to persuade fellow editors about the reliability and neutrality of any particular author. (Try and quote Justin McCarthy on that page and you'll see what I mean...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * LoL!! I searched for Dr. McCarthy and saw what you mean :) Well, there goes the link. SotirisVA 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, don't worry about the many new reverts - there was some misunderstanding, I think, but Khoikhoi and I are working it out together. Loot at his and my talkpage, we'll easily find a good solution for the city-names issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Late welcome
Welcome!

Hello, SotirisVa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Suggestion for names
Let's use both, ok? &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Khoikhoi, sure, I never meant to remove the Greek names. But I believe that the official Turkish names should come first, as they are the names that are used today and in 1800s. Please see my entry in your talk. I'll wait for a while to see if you have any objections, and then will make the modifications. Thanks :) SotirisVA 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well throughout the West in the 1800s you'd see things that call it Constantinople in English, such as this, for example. Of course it was locally known as Istanbul, but I believe it was only officially changed until 1930, right? Anyways, good luck on NPOV-izing the article. I'm leaving tomorrow and won't be back for quite a bit, but if you have any questions feel free to ask Fut. perfect. Ciao! &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it was always officially Istanbul (after 1453 of course). Ottomans just didn't impose it too much to English and others, I guess. I don't think they cared much though, but Turks do now. And thanks for the photo, I really liked it. Have a nice trip... SotirisVA 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)