User talk:Yannismarou/Archive 3

Roman military - peer review
Hi, this article is currently pending peer review and I see that you have an interest in military history and have peer-reviewed articles before - if you have time I would greatly appreciate any advice or comments you can give within the peer review structure for improving this article. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 16:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War
Thanks again. Your help has been great. Kyriakos 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Yanni, just popping by to tell you that the Cretan War is up for FA. Kyriakos 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Το μόνο πρόβλημα είναι ότι διάβασα ένα από τα βιβλία όταν είμουνα σε διακοπές και δε μπορώ να το βρω πουθενά. Και το άλλα το πήρα από την βιβλιοθήκη και άλλοι το διαβάζουν. Kyriakos 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar Yanni. And I also want to thank you for all the help you have given me with the Cretan War. Kyriakos 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure!--Yannismarou 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK if I used your user page design becuase my is getting messy? Kyriakos 06:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper goodbye
Hi Yannismarou, this is Konstable. I just want to say thank you for all the wonderful work that you've been doing around here and goodbye.

I should have listened to you and never become an administrator. Now I got increasingly frustrated with the bureaucracy, decided to leave, but when I popped back in for a quick message to someone I was dragged into WP:AN/I and then arbitration where huge exagerations, misinterpretations and false statements have been brought up, which I don't even have the energy to try to defend. I have been accused of many things including "trolling", "disruption" and I have been wrongly blocked for a total of 3 times now. Nothing more than a spit in the face for the time that I have put in to help out Wikipedia. I am more than unwelcome here and any return even in several months' time is quite impossible. Who knows, maybe they will even ban me.

You are one of the best editors of Wikipedia. Your work is more valuable than 1,000 admins put together, keep the FAs coming! And good luck! --203.109.209.49 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (This IP is shared and not quite static, changes every few weeks, so please don't respond on the IP talk page)

El Greco
Read the diff carefully - I'm removing the 'poopy' text that you seem to be inserting with your reverts. I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but I don't want to break 3RR. --ElizabethFong 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your first edit; my revert; your re-revert --ElizabethFong 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thingy thing
Hi mate, how's it been.

Just bringing this non-football thing to your attention, since you're all clever and stuff.

MTS Driver Recruiters is an advertising spam article created by User:Mtsdrivers and he's put a few links to the article here and there, for example on Truck driver. Not quite sure what to do, but I thought I'd let you know since you're an admin and everything. He originally put a link to the MTS Drivers website on the Truck driver page but I deleted it. It seems he's back and is determined to advertise his site on Wikipedia :-)

Thanks for your help, maybe you could just pass this on for some body else to deal with. -GilbertoSilvaFan 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for catching this one. I'll normally be sufficient to just stick the {db-advert} tag on; the speedy-deletion category is then usually patrolled quite regularly by several admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Niko, Francis and the dinosaurs
Hi, don't worry about Niko and Francis! :-) They were just having a nice little dispute among friends, about how to treat alternate names of the Macedonian language ("Slavomacedonian", "Macedonian Slavic" etc.) Francis' contention was that these alternates are so marginal in the (non-Greek) scholarly literature that it would be "undue weight" to give them a prominent mention in the lead, so now they've been in a competition who can bring most sources. Francis was claiming he could counter every instance of "Slav-..." with a hundred others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! I can't believe how much attention we've attracted with this! NikoSilver 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC Finnish Civil War
Hello, the article's lead has been shortened and some page numbers added. You may want to reconsider your opinion about the article, as it seems to be quite quiet in the FAC. More page numbers will be added all the time, as much can be. It takes some time, of course. Per RelHistBuff's comments I don't think it would affect the verifialibility of FAC that much, if all notes didn't have page numbers all on all authors? --Pudeo (Talk) 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

El Greco
Nice article - I've done some very minor copyediting, and left some comments on the talk page. I didn't check any of the images, but I assume they are all PD anyway. Cheers, Yomangani talk 02:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the article on Featured article candidates Tom 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Tom's response to your questions/comments:


 * Why didn't you discuss your intentions with me?
 * Anyone can nominate an article without having to discuss with anyone else. The nomination page provides a forum for discussion. No one has to discuss with you before nominating a page that you have worked on.


 * Didn't you see in the talk page that an independent review initiated by me and executed by Yongamani was in its way?
 * Yes, as I have written, I have referenced the peer-review twice, please see Featured article candidates/El Greco. You've said the peer review is complete.


 * Didn't you see in the talk page again that I am one of the main editors (honestly? the only main editor!) of this article?
 * Yes, I've said this several times as you have acknowledged.


 * Don't I have the right to be informed about your initiatives before they take place and not afterwards?
 * In this context, you definitely don't have the right, no.


 * Didn't you think to ask me whether I had the intention or not to nominate myself this article?
 * No. It's FA quality, no one else had nominated it, so I nominated it.


 * Don't you recognize that the main editor of an article should have the right to nominate himself an article he is working on (self-nomination)?
 * I do and have always recognised that you do have the right to nominate the article.


 * If the main editor does not have such an intention [to nominate an article], then OK; do as you wish. But did you ask me if and when I had the intention to nominate the article?
 * I'm guessing a lot of these questions are rhetorical? I did not ask you if you had the intention to nominate the article, we do not have to get permission from any of the editors in order to nominate an article. If someone thinks an article is FA quality, they can nominate it, even if someone else has done a lot of editing on the article and doesn't think it's ready yet.

Cooperation board launched
A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight
You supported Battle of Crete, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My sympathies...
for the frustrating situation that has arisen due to the El Greco FAC. :( But don't worry, we'll get a star on this article very soon! Let me know if/when you need me to look over the article again! Regards, Gzkn 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Gzkn, I hope this incident won't discourage you from continuing to improve the article. :) - Tutmosis  02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys! But I'm not discouraged!--Yannismarou 12:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!
I just saw Demosthenes is scheduled for the Main Page on December 3! Congratulations! Ruhrfisch 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Website inline cits
Is it possible to turn certain information you get from web sites into inline cits like the ones ones where you get the info from books. Kyriakos 08:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:MINOR
Yannis, I notice that you mark most of your edits as minor. This is quite misleading. The minor edits are when you add a comma or an interwiki link. When you add a comment on a talk page of another editor, this is not a minor edit. Best, Ghirla  -трёп-  08:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all of them! But you are right. Sometimes the hand goes there without even realizing it! I don't know why, but I'll try to be more cautious. Thanks!--Yannismarou 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you plan to apply for adminship, this is one of crucial details that RfA regulars are prone to decry. Best, Ghirla  -трёп-  09:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, again! But not yet! I'll wait a few months more until I think about applying for adm.--Yannismarou 09:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan
Hi! HJust wanted to apologise for taking so long to deal with your (excellent) suggestions: Slight problem of being too ill to get at the needed materials. It will be done. Adam Cuerden talk 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
There is MUCH to do but the road ahead will be a blessed road in the end. Cheers.(UNFanatic 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your support
The article Joseph W. Tkach was promoted to FA on 3 December with a 4-0 result. Many thanks for your comments and support! I hope to bring more articles to FAC soon. --RelHistBuff 10:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagtrolling
I was surprised to see you engage in this. Such moves have been previously condemned by ArbCom as abuse of citation tags. If you feel some assertion is dubitable and dispute it, please find an adequate citation, rather than hastening to litter the text with ugly tags. Best, Ghirla  -трёп-  08:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But what if the author of the article has left Wikipedia a year ago? In this case, your tags are addressed to noone in particular and will disfigure the article for eternity. I don't think they are particularly helpful for our readers. -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I provided inline citations for the loci communes that appeared dubitable to you. I believe you may have done as much (and more) yourself, without bothering other editors. The article now has forty three inline citations. Is it enough for you or should we rise they number to hundreds? -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

El Greco
Keep up the great work...I showed the article to the folks on IRC and they were amazed. :) Gzkn 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Yannismarou 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Will do in a few minutes...as far as IRC, check out IRC and WP:IRC :). Gzkn 07:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again!--Yannismarou 07:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! Here's the diff: . I left some comments in there. Feel free to ask any questions or revert back to the previous wording. Gzkn 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what others have said, that you have made a really wonderful article. Mathchem271828 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Caspian expeditions of the Rus
I respectfully stroke out your comments as inflammatory. Of course you are free to revert and I will not do it again. But please consider rephrasing to avoid bad blood. It is up to you of course. Sorry, --Irpen 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinking more of it, I self-reverted. It is not up to me to remove this. Just was too much afraid for the discussion of the good article becoming personal. But I would still appreciate your refactoring of your edit to make it less patronizing. --Irpen 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Peer review/El Greco/archive2
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Peer review/El Greco/archive2 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 10:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

El Greco
Tx for the message. I have only gone through the first third of the article, but I will look through the rest when I have time. I don't know if you were able to attend to the wonderful exhibit in either New York or London (cannot remember where I saw it, NYC maybe) about El Greco and his connection with a Byzantine tradition. If I can remember well enough, I'll try to review that discussion next. Do you see this as essentially your article? I.e. have you worked to transform the entire thing per your own style and priorities? Eusebeus 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish I could remember the name of the exhibit, but it was the only one that had extensive Byzantine examples as contrast. By priorities, I simply meant the way it is structured and the way intellectual progression (bio - analysis - technique etc etc) is established. Either way, a very nice job. Eusebeus 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I ask is that you seem to have a very good grasp of how to provide a general encyclopedic treatment (even if I feel the presence of scholarly citation is overdone). I ask about ownership above, because it may be you prefer to work on your own in these matters, but if you are up for collaboration, I have several articles which I would love to clean up but have not yet done so since the task is dauntingly large (most importantly, Don Quixote). If you are looking for collaboration or assistance, let me know. Eusebeus 11:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was one example of several, so don't feel press ganged. Of course, DQ has many facets to it, which makes it interesting and it would be nice to get such an important icon up to FA status. The article as it stands has no regular editors. Eusebeus 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New articles
Hi Yannis, yes I've been a bit lazy regarding this, but this December I've been exhausted by chasing block-evading socks. Unfortunately, there's no secret tool (at least, I don't know any); I simply look in the contributions of contributors who may hve created articles. Also, my watchlist, that covers more or less all ancient Greece-related articles 500-30 BC gives a help in detecting new contributors; but it takes quite a lot of time to make a good control. And now I'm a bit occupied with Chad. Yes, I know, you'll tell me, why should somebody lose time with a country like Chad? It's simply that if I don't do it, nobody will. Ciao, --Aldux 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan peer review
Yannismarou - thank you for taking the time to review the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article and providing such thoughtful and comprehensive comments. I will consider them carefully and revise the article accordingly. Regards, Cimm[talk] 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Sparta War
Hello. Thank you for your contact regarding this article. I want to respond to some of your comments you left on my talk page regarding why I failed this article for GA status.


 * "1. The article is POV, because it says that Nabis was a tyrant who deposed the rightful king. Where is the bias?! Sparta did have a rightful king, who was deposed by Nabis."

Well without a source it appears to the casual reader as a POV statement. Consider that some (particularly his followers) may have considered Nabis the rightful king. Indeed many inhabitants of the Nazi Empire believed Adolf Hitler was the rightful emperor and ruler of Europe, despite the consensus he was not. Your educational experience may have led you and others to believe he deposed the rightful king, but if so, we the reader need to know why and who says this.

The phrase "Rightful king" in many parts of the world is synonimous with a divine monarchy, which is inherently contentious as it has religions connurtations and is open to POV and interpretation, thus should be more clearly defined.

Furthermore this article is too Nabis-centric, and reads for the mostpart like a biography of him rather than a historic account of the war. What did the soldiers and mercinaries observe? - if no sources exist then please state this in the article.


 * "2.The article has 4 sources (2 primary and 2 secondary). Aren't they enough for GAC?! But they are usually enough for FAC!!! I don't understand your judgment here."

Four sources for such a huge war is alarming. Again, would the Second World War be appropriately referenced with 2 primary and 2 secondary sources? Diversifing the referencing would show a bredth of research and provide alternate quotes and viewpoints.


 * "3.Two maps are not enough for GA?!! Hmmmm ... I do not want to comment on that."

Well you have - but I did not fail this article for this reason; two maps is fine, but images of weapons, rulers, technology, ships, artefacts and such do exist for this period and would simply add to the readership and enjoyment for readers and users alike.


 * "4. You say that the lead of World War II is fine?!!!! But it is awful!! Awful!!! A stubby par for such a long article?!!!!! Please, check WP:LEAD! The lead of Roman-Spartan War conforms much better to the WP:LEAD recommendations. And if you want to see how's a long lead, check the Third Servile War, which is by the way FA!"

I disagree. If you re-read WP:LEAD you would see that it requires lead sections to be concise and compelling. At present it is not, and has a grand-total of zero references.

Furthermore, you state that there are other articles of similar or worse calibre with GA status - this to me suggests they require de-listing whilst they are improved, rather than using them as a benchmark. Though Third Servile War is at present (in my evidently humble opinion) a slightly better article.

By contacting me in such a way is not particularly the right way about things, but I welcome your contact non-the-less. By having a particular article project failed is not the end of the world - it is a way to improve the article further by listening to other users concerns.

Please consider visiting Peer review and follow the instructions. By doing this you will receive further feedback on how to improve the article. Alternatively you can ask for another GA review, and whilst I would not review it again, I would submit my suggestions and objections for other reviewers.

To demonstrate my reasons for failing the article, I also have concerns with the following statements:


 * Shortly after this, however - how shortly? a second, a minute, a decade? This sentence also includes what is known in English Language as a grammatical redundancy, and is not typical of a good article.


 * but it quickly became clear that the war was going poorly for the Macedonians - how quickly did it become clear; a second, a year, a century? Was this for all Macedonians or just specific individuals? Again this is also poor use of English grammar, and would be better if it read more like... "it has been asserted by such a source that X weeks/days after this event, Macedonian army commanders observed that their battle-strategy was failing." or words to that effect.


 * Achean League, Sparta's primary enemy - how does a user know this is true without a source? Primary enemy is highly emotive and should again be sourced.

I hope this helps somewhat in demonstrating why I failed this article for the time being. Do keep up the good work, though consider visiting WP:CIV. Regards, Jhamez84 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you, and ultimately have failed this article on this occation - it simply is not good enough in my opinion as a reviewer and per the reasons I've given. Be mindful I gain nothing personally from this - I am applying my experience to this article, which is very poor at best.


 * Better luck next time for acheiving GA, or persuding reviewers otherwise, for a military history related project. Best, Jhamez84 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, better luck on persuasing reviewers to change their mind. The article is very bad and I've failed it for these reasons. Please be more careful in reading users comments and the way in which you reply; I actually hold a BA degree in (contemporary) Military history and am aware of the various historic in/accuracies, but am using hypothetical points as part of critical thinking - which I applied to the article.


 * I think you should consider visiting Assume good faith, and take things a little less personally, I actually have the article's best interests at heart and would simply like to see it improved. Hope that helps. Regards, Jhamez84 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC

Hi Yanni, what do you think of the article's latest developments? Kyriakos 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Morning from Manchester
You may be interested in visiting this and this. Hope they help, Jhamez84 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Yes, it is despicable. If you cannot see that, I cannot understand the point of the reply you left to Mitsos in the WPHOG talk page! When I said "out of nowhere", I meant to this AfD, out of nowhere. I know very well that all the contributors to that AfD have been in Wikipedia for a long time. Did you actually read my post? Don't you find it interesting that ten Greek editors showed up to the AfD of an article that was only created two days ago? How did these people know about this? There is no logical explanation! Am I wrong? What would you feel if you were in my place? Please imagine that for a second! I had noticed that the debate has picked up steam in the PGG article, then Dirak creates this page, it is AfDed, and suddenly ten Greek editors show up! Just thinking with your head and not with your heart, you must surely see the bizarreness of the situation. How is that a show of good faith? All those people had signed up for the coop board, and this? I respect people's opinions, however people also have a right to wonder what is going when suddenly ten Greek editors jump into an AfD not even about Greece, for an article created by a Greek editor on a topic bizarrely resembling an article that they had been edit-warring recently. Whether you agree with me or not, I have also been in contact with other admins about this, and they all agree. Is that also a coincidence? You know, I was really glad when I had read your reply to Mitsos... It really felt good that there would be such people out there who thought like that. But when you said that "at first I had some reservations, but I realized that they were sincere", imagine what it is like for Turkish editors. I am sincere. But where does all this charade fit into this? YHowever, if we cannot see eye to eye on this, there is not much I can say. Other administrators also feel the same way, so what am I supposed to think? Baristarim 09:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was not referring to anyone in particular. If you are talking about good faith, see this. If I were not sincere, I would have simply edit-warred over that article instead of actually devoting time to fix it. I cannot change your opinions, but if a simiar thing had happenned with Turkish editors, ie if a Turkish had created a Albanian genocide article, then ten Turkish editors who had signed up to the coop board jumped in (some who had not even edited since November 11, then I am sure that you would have felt the same way. Especially, if the article in question was created per WP:POINT because of a dispute in another turco-greek page. Of course you have the right to browse any page you want in Wiki, but it might be nice if you explained how you actually learned of this AfD. There is clearly a problem with good-faith here, and that is a cornerstone of that board's foundations. Did you read FPAS' comments? If you cannot see the violation of good-faith policy of the board in this whole charade, and worse, violation of Wikipedia policies on WP:POINT and disruption in this, how can I explain to other Turkish users that they can come in good faith to the coop board and raise issues in a civilized environement? I really would like to know what you would have felt if the situation was inversed between Greeks and Turks. What is it that makes you doubt the validity of the coop board? Have any Turkish coop board members created an Albanian genocide article, emailed each other and all showed up in the space of ten hours to vote keep? Are you honestly telling me that there isn't anything fishy? How did all those users learn of this so quickly? Personally, I was contacted by a non-Turk over this after ten Greek editors suddenly showed up and voted keep. This user emailed me because I was at the coop board and also because he thought that there was something "extremely fishy" going on (his words). Who is at fault here?Baristarim 09:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pff, ok I will try to be constructive and drop the heat. So let's see what can be done.. Baristarim 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yannismarou, what you deemed notable and what you voted to keep was an article accusing Turkey of genocide agaisnt its own citizens. Do you expect me to believe you voted for such a thing based on its academic or scholarly merit? As i said, i expected that much from Niko and Dirak, but it is disheartening to see even seemingly reasonable editors such as yourself and politis support them, especially in the face of so much criticism by admins and third party editors. --A.Garnet 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What you proposed and what you supported are two different things. One is a valid topic on the situation of Kurds in Turkey, the other was User:Diraks article that Turkey committed a genocide against its own people because of their ethnicity. You didnt distance yourself from Diraks article, you simply acquiesced by voting in line with your fellow Greek editors. As for Baris's outburst, given the conduct of a number of Greek editors over the past week, it is more than understandable. --A.Garnet 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Native language
I was talking to Ozgur, not to Doktor, how can I be talking to someone who posted his note after I have? :) Ozgur is not part of the TR "gang", so it is pretty safe to assume that we were not scheming! Ozgur also speaks Turkish, and I also speak French sometimes, so it is not a big deal if those languages are used from time to time. If I was insulting an editor etc, I am sure Ozgur would have warned me in English in his reply. It wouldn't have changed anything about the AfD in any case. Baristarim 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
I'm pretty sure I know the awnser I'll get, but since the value of the pot, I've thought it's worth trying. Wouldn't you accept standing for the RfA? I know you're afraid of the bureaucracy, but remember, once you're an admin it's up to you to chose the sysop stuff (or none, if you need a pause at some point). The point is there are around too many sysops with little mainspace experience, and was hoping on a yes from you to stem the tide with one of our most fantastic classicists ;-) Also (dirty trick coming) arent'y you tempted at the idea of becoming the first Greek sysop? :-))))--Aldux 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be honoured to co-nominate Yanni, as I also told him before in private discussions. NikoSilver 22:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it! We need all the sensible, experienced administrators we can get, and you'd be a good one. --RobthTalk 04:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You dirty Aldux! You are really a sly (not old, I think!) fox! Seriously now: I'm really honored and besieged (not in a negative way) with your proposal and the subsequent comments of Nicos and Robth. I need some days of meditation, and of thoughtful and detailed examination of the sysop stuff. I must know where I may end up! I must know what I claim and what I want with my possible RfA. From Saturday I'll be in a 4-days wiki-break. I'll be back on the 28th of December and between 1-10 of the new year I 'll give you a definite answer. Until then I will be studying Wikipedia! I must say that, if I finally decide to proceed, it would be a great honor for me if all the three of you could co-nominate. Could this happen?!--Yannismarou 17:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy to hear that it may have worked! ;-))))) If you end with accepting, as I hope, you can certainly count on me for the nomination.--Aldux 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkish term.
Ofcourse there is no Turkish term for Cristmas, but you can say;
 * "Yeni yılınızı kutlarım"(I congratulate for your new year), "Yeni yılınız kutlu olsun"(same meaning), "Mutlu yıllar"(Happy new year), "Nice yıllara" (I wish many years for you)


 * also there is a nother event in turkey(in islamic world also) at January2th; Kurban Bayramı. For that; "Kurban bayramınız kutlu olsun" also is a proper saying.

Regards. Must TC 15:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks
Dear Yannismarou, Thanks for your polite message. In fact, I am opposite to sacre animals, but also I respect to the people that they have beliefs and do something for that belief. Thanks again. regards. Must TC 15:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece
Thank you for the kind words about my being the creator of the project. Regretfully, I cannot say that I actually am such. Aexon79 is actually the creator. I simply enhanced the project page rather a lot. I personally do see the pronounced overlap of the two projects, and was in fact somewhat hesitant to try to enhance the page to get the single additional member after myself it has yet gotten. I see from the scope of the WikiProject History of Greece that your project includes the history of the entire country, up to an including the current day, so there is a virtual absolute overlap. The only difference I can potentially see is possibly in the articles on the infrastructure of Greece itself (cities, buildings, what have you), that tend to be included in the scope of other national projects. Please see the list of all the stub types that fall within the scope of WikiProject Germany, for instance. It occurred to me at the time, probably in error, that the History of Greece project had a rather more limited scope. Personally, given the much greater activity and membership of your project, I would have no objections to it perhaps even become the sole project, provided your group would also explicitly cover these, often admittedly trivial, aspects of the country. In general, I've seen that most of the WikiProjects (Name of country here) tend to get the majority of the members, because their name is potentially rather more inclusive. That may well not be the case here. Certainly, I have no pronouncec reservations about seeing the two groups merge, with the name WikiProject Greece becoming a redirect to the HOG project. I note quite happily that your project even engages in assessment, which at present is my own primary focus in wikipedia. You might wish to check with Aexon79 and Delirium if either of them had any pronounced objections to seeing the two groups merge, but, with the possible proviso of the explicit inclusion of the buildings, bridges, and what have you within the scope of the HOG project, I as an individual would have no objections to the merger of the Greece project into the larger HOG project. Badbilltucker 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm, guys... We also have WP:GR (apart from WP:HOG and WP:GREECE). Why not also create WP:HELLAS etc? :-) Seriously, we need to sort these out... NikoSilver 16:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the board is additional and complements the project, but I do agree that the problem with the two projects should be sorted out.--Yannismarou 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:
I hope you have a Merry Christmas και Χρόνια Πολλά από την Αυστραλία. Kyriakos 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How does the Roman-Spartan War look now? Kyriakos 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I nominated the article for FA if you would like to go and leave a comment. Kyriakos 07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

El Greco
Your article really kicks butt, comparatively. But I reserve the right to ask for more from the few Wikipedia editors who really can give more. I apologize if this bothers you, as it seems to, but I think Wikipedia could aspire to be something more than just a match to another encyclopedia. If you're capable of it, I'm going to ask it. KP Botany 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, Britannica used to have beautiful articles on artists--I loved reading them in the library as a child. Still, there are advantages to the Wikipedia format, and you write better than 99.99% of the editors on Wikipedia, so I won't ask you to outdo Britannica but please don't ask me to cut you slack on writing! I'm always thrilled on Wikipedia when I read something a cut above the rest of the crowd, and I do have a tendency to ask the sun and the moon of those editors who seem capable of giving it. Why not? Wikipedia's not going to reach excellence without more excellent writers--those we have already have to be identified. I'll reread the article again tomorrow. Cheers, KP Botany 20:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Ok.. However, I also would like to take the opportunity to let you know of some problems with that article and the majority of your additions. Human rights covers everything related to the right of a human being. I am sorry, but you are treating the article as if its title was "Human rights violations .." or "KG". What about gender equality Yannis? Most of the women in Kurdish villages don't know how to read and write because of local feudal customs.. What about honor killings?? Don't hundreds of Kurdish women getting shot by their family because they made a pass at the neighbor's son merit a mention? This was exactly the problem there was at the HR in TR article before I rewrote it. Human rights covers everything. Gender equality, labor rights, gay rights, freedom of expression, freedom of press etc. Pls take a look at HR in TR article. That's why I am still for a merge: the article is FORK of 2-3 articles, and is becoming more and more so with every edit. The main has scant relations to the title, think about what I said about women etc. I am sorry, but this article is being used to bang up on Turkey, and not really talk about the "human rights" of Kurds. People can think what they want, but hundreds of Kurdish women getting killed to cleanse the "family honor" is much more important then some wacko liberal getting thrown in jail for a few months because of a book. Don't think so? And it is the feudal attitudes native to the Kurdish and Arab tribes that are causing this, not the Turkish govt. In fact, TR state is trying with all its might to crack down on such feudal native practices. Please try to contextualize things Yannis and don't let that article turn into some sort of punching bag. If you really care about the Kurds, you should mention what i just wrote and give them greater coverage then some stupid Istanbulite writer who got thrown in jail just to be a rebel. You included whole paragraphs about some random write and NONE for all those honor killings? That's all. Cheers and happy new year! Baristarim 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Personally, I am not against the article's title since it is a neutral and legitimate title. My merge vote was only for actual content. And don't worry, take your time! I will also have some more time since I have finished with Turkey. I will try to take a look at it soon. Cheers! Baristarim 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanium
Additional work since your vote - can you revisit? Featured article review/Titanium Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek legaslitive election templates
Why did you delete the templates in the Greek elections and transfer them to the main page, as in Greek legislative election, 1990. Standard is to have the results in a template in order to avoid cluttering the main article and this is done on most other articles. --Jonte-- 11:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. But it is still a problem since the whole point of templates is to use them in several pages. I.e on Elections in 1990. --Jonte-- 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

El Greco
WOW! NikoSilver 17:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ευχαριστώ! 2006 in Wikipedia closes well!--Yannismarou 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)