User talk:Yannismarou/Archive 5

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I  (Explanation and Disclaimer) 

--TomasBat (Talk) 13:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural Burial AfD nomination
I have made a number of improvements to the Mike Salisbury article based upon your comments, unfortunately it has since been recommended for deletion. Would you please review my comments and weigh in on the issue. I have not had the chance to reply to all of the Natural Burial articles that have been tagged for deletion but will do so shortly. I am a little concerned that some have labelled these articles as a walled garden perhaps because of the focused topic, however other than the subject matter (natural burial) the articles are completely unrelated. As works in progress these articles require additional research and referencing however I believe they make a reasonable contribution to the encyclopaedia. I hope you will support my attempt to keep these articles alive. Eulogy4Afriend 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PGG article
Hi, can you sign yay or nay here please. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou: "Please refrain from attempting to impose your POV in the avbove-mentioned articles. Instead, discuss these issues in the talk pages of these articles"

And thats what im doing if you have not noticed..What you say as "my point of view" are taken from non turkish sites and impartial sources, im not trying to impose my opinions, im just representing them..--laertes d 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At least they try to maintain a certain sense of objectivity ha, dont you think so? --laertes d 17:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Hey, no problem man, take your time. I thank you for wanting to help me out :) - Fedayee 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Yannismarou, thank you for the comments on the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article. I completed all your suggestions and I think it looks pretty good right now. Do you think it is ready for a FAC? If you've got a new batch of comments to further improve the article, by all means please add. Thanks again ;) - Fedayee 05:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for those comments. Not much else is left to be done in my opinion. -- Davo88 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/Law
Do you still believe your objection is justifiable? Please reply at the end of the candidates page. Thank you. --Parker007 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/Leonard Orban
Very detailed, helpful and stimulating review. Thanks for your time. I will follow -I think- all your suggestions as soon as possible. Some of the repetitions you mention came from my effort to comply with WP:SS. The balance is of course difficult. Personal life and earlier carrier, as well as his wider political views (on EU-US relations etc), are really difficult to expand. Before he became a Commissioner he wasn't really prominent even in his own country and, as I do not speak Romanian, I have to rely only on English language sources. I asked for help from Romanian wikipedians but with no result. On "Your first 3 paragraphs in "Career" have no citations. Try to have, at least, one citation for each paragraph.", well, the citation is in the end of the 4th paragraph and I put it there because it the source for all the 4 paragraphs. I don't know what is best: to put it in the beginning of the section or to use the multiple citation template to put it at the end of its paragraph? Thanks again! --Michkalas 14:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you for an advice. I have read your ten tips to FA and I found some very interesting remarks there. Well, in the article on Orban I still have to rephrase and organise better "Views on multilingualism", then I will copy-edit the whole article and check again the factes, references etc, and I will finally submit it to the League of Copyeditors, as you suggested. These may take a couple of days. I was wondering what would you suggest me to do afterwards: another peer review or nominate it for GA status? In fact, I don't know what I could do additionally to nominate the article even for FAC, but I suppose this is too daring, even if I am prepared to work following the reviewers' comments. Hoping not to make you waste your time, --Michkalas 18:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made most of the changes you suggested: fixing grammar, shortening some long sentences, avoiding repetitions, merging paragraphs, creating section "Early years and personal life", reducing direct quotes, and avoiding too many wikilinks (I am not sure I did that enough). In fact, I have rewritten some parts of the article. As to the quotes, I preferred not to use or boxes like in El Greco, as these, I believe, give too much emphasis on a single sentence, but in the case of Orban a quote that important doesn't seem to exist. On his general political views I haven't found anything important besides that I have already included. Maybe when his official site is launched, there will be more information. I have asked SandyGeorgia for a review. So, thanks again for the review and for your valuable advice on how to proceed with the article. --Michkalas 16:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yanni, SandyGeorgia hasn't made a review yet nor he has answered somehow that he will make one. Should I ask someone else or the League of Copyeditors or just wait? --Michkalas 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D
Thanks for your comments. You have obviously looked at this article in detail and you have pointed out some areas in need of improvement. I'm gonna get to work. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates
You gave me duplicate newsletter notices and welcoming to WikiProject Greece. - 4:22pm, February 4, 2007

David Hockney
Hey! Thanks for rating David Hockney. I appreciate it and we'll start working on the citations etc. ASAP! Amphytrite 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Catholic Scouts of Eurpoe
I see you deleted the page. Did you make the database merge? I don't see it in the history of Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas. --evrik (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you go back and make the merge of the information? Thanks.
 * --evrik (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks I appreciate the help! --evrik (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece
Exaristome para poli for the warm welcome :D. Ta elleniko mou then eine kalo alla to xzero ligo :) Chaldean 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

10 tips for a featured article
I hope you don't mind but i added your wonderful page as a link on the bottom of the WP:WIAFA page. The Placebo Effect 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ARF ready?
Hey Yannis, after completing your suggestions and going over it again, do you think Armenian Revolutionary Federation is ready for FAC? Thanks - Fedayee 04:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan FA status!
Yannis - thank you for your support in pushing this article all the way to FA status! Best, Cimm[talk] 11:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Orban
Yanni, sorry to leaving a message again for the same subject, but I saw from your "user contributions" that you were online these days and maybe you have missed my message. So, it is 4 days now and no answer or action whatsoever from SandyGeorgia, though he is otherwise quite active in the Wikipedia. Should I tell him again to take a look at the article or should I go for the League of Copyeditors? I hope my message is not an unnecessary or tiring duplication. Regards, --Michkalas 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Law page
hello Reswik, could you do me a big favour and find a book on the sociology of law, and then write a bit about it in that section you added onto the law page? The article's being reviewed right now (link in the law page) and I previously haven't bothered to put anything in, because I'm unfamiliar with the concept, and the article on sociology of law is pretty unhelpful. I'd really appreciate it! Wikidea 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. OK. In the next day or two, I'll add a few sentences or a paragraph of substantance to the new section (and foot note or two or three...) and perhaps a bit more to the Sociology of law stub. Although, there is already some substance in the last Law section on institutions -- a more explicit transition could perhaps be made between the last two main sections. Btw, nice article :) --Reswik 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some things in the sociology of law. Thanks for the copy-edit. Maybe, you could do a bit more of it throughout the article! One of the major criticisms to the article is that its tone is quite informal, and I basically agree. But I am not a native English speaker, and I do not trust completely my prose skills. So, any assistance would be welcome. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some things in the sociology of law. Thanks for the copy-edit. Maybe, you could do a bit more of it throughout the article! One of the major criticisms to the article is that its tone is quite informal, and I basically agree. But I am not a native English speaker, and I do not trust completely my prose skills. So, any assistance would be welcome. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Yannismarou. I am very glad you worked on the sociology of law sub-section. :) OK, during this next week, I'll look at the article in terms of copyediting (and also in terms of checking somewhat that social scientific kinds of terms and concepts are consistent across the article). I hope next week is soon enough. Right now, related to the article, my priority is to put some material in the sociology of law article, and then summarize a bit of that for the law article. I haven't made it yet to my library (a distance away); I intend to go on Monday. But, I do have some references to work with (as I'm familiar with some aspects of political sociology). So, it may take a few days for me to work on the whole article. Related to this: I am wondering if and how to mention explicitly anthropology, criminology, and/or political science regarding law -- I personally am not familiar with those fields. Perhaps a general mention could be made of those fields? Reswik 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm! Nice question! You mean mentioning anthropology, criminology, and/or political science in the law article or mentioning law in anthropology, criminology, and/or political science? If you mean the first, I'm not sure, but what is sure is that we must nor over-expand the article. I'm happy you work on the sociology of law article; it really needs improvement. As far as the "sociology of law" section in the law article, I think it is already quite fine. My main concern now with law is prose. Cheers!--Yannismarou 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, since the article is long already, I guess just a mention in the intro or somewhere in article is enough for other fields then. I copyedited the first two sections this afternoon, doing a fair bit of work on the intro. And I switched the order of two of the article sections. I believe all of those changes improved the article. What do you think?  The intro still needed more work which I think I noted. Since Wikidea saw fit to revert my copyedits of the intro back to the previous version of the intro and to revert the section order and and delete the etymology section, so as not to waste effort, I will refrain from further copyedits for a few days. In relation to this topic, I'll focus on adding some content the sociology of law article. Btw, I have 20 years experience in editing and publishing in various contexts and have, what usually is regarded as a good eye for the organization of a piece of writing. Not sure if and how to proceed with copyedits. --Reswik 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yannis, thanks for all the great work on the page, especially the references. I'm going to revert some of your changes, but I really appreciate the effort you're putting in!
 * First, I'm afraid Brittanica is WRONG with its definition of law - law isn't always binding; public international law isn't; it also says that the people need to accept law as binding, which is wrong as well if you're a positivist. Unfortunately, if one takes jurisprudence seriously, this is why we have so much debate in the philosophy of law; I'm putting back the composite definition - but I see the criticism in the intro's complexity from Theonlyedge. Can you suggest anything else?
 * Second, I'm not sure about the etymology and definition's section; I like Rousseau too; but he's a natural lawyer, and as you see he's saying "an unjust law is not a law" or lex injusta non est lex, as the very old saying goes; now this is bitterly contested by all the positivists since Bentham. The definition of law is the philosophy of law (or analytical jurisprudence). I know this is going to seem boring and obtuse, but it's important. If one doesn't try to deal with definitions, then the etymology looks a bit small for its own section.
 * Third, I'm just making a few of the photos smaller, and don't you think the opening photo looks better if bigger?
 * Fourth, I wanted the criminal law case, Dudley and Stephens in there as an example of how a case might spin out; it brings the section more to life by illustrating what can happen. I was going to put one into the trusts section too, because you raised it before.
 * Lastly, I'm just putting the above onto the FAC talk page.

WPBiography
Since Wikiproject:Biography has been a little rudderless in the last few weeks, I've been trying to step up and help where I can. I really think the project needs to have a collaboration council or coordinating committee or something along those lines so it doesn't depend too much on one person. But before taking any drastic action :) I wanted to get a good discussion going with as many participants as possible, so I've started one on the project talk page. Given your long and tireless contributions, I'd very much like to hear your opinion in the discussion. Mocko13 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request
Dear Yannismarou

I have seen you peer reviewed some biography pages. It would be very kind of you if you could also review Abbas Kiarostami when you have time. I've just sent a request for review. Thanks a lot.Sangak 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Manuel I Komnenos
I just wanted to say thankyou for all your excellent work on Manuel I Komnenos. I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into ensuring this article stays Featured. If only more Wikipedians were like you! Thanks again for all you have done :) Bigdaddy1204 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Yanni, thanks for the congrats. I see that you are helping Manuel Kommenos to keep it's FA status and I was thought I might be of some assistance. One of the sources is John Julius Norwhich's book about the history of Byzantine Empire, he also wrote a book about the Kingdom of Sicily and the Normans in Italy. Seeing as the article includes stuff about the Norman raids on Greece, I thought that that book might help. Bye for now. Kyriakos 08:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WPBiography Template
I'd like to point out the template as used on Talk:Hrant Dink. It's a great way to clean up a talk page, as articles often fall within the purview of multiple wikiprojects. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

George I of Greece
Thank you for your comments about Featured article candidates/George I of Greece. In answer to two of your points I have used cite templates and formatted the list according to Manual of Style. DrKiernan 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Yannis, I just like to thank you for all the time you spent giving me advice about how to improve the Roman-Spartan War which lasted FA today. Once again thanks. Kyriakos 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Law page
Wow it's great!! Thanks for all your effort! Yes, I guess next step can be the main page. Have a good break till Monday. Wikidea 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Armia Krajowa
Since M.K. is as usually ignoring all arguments he doesn't like (primarily that his sources are not reliable and represent a fringe POV), we could use more of your mediating attempts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Greek playwrights
Yannis - I've been doing some rough work on Aeschylus and Sophocles, and would appreciate your input on them, given your expertise in the area of ancient Greece and success with FA's. I've just started on them, really (although I'm going to drop working on them for a few days to get a little perspective) but would like to work them up to FA eventually. - Mocko13 21:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I just figured you were busy elsewhere and would get to it when you could. Mocko13 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Fucking" correction
You're right. Thanks for correcting the date. :)

As for the impoliteness, I was angry at the device, not the editors. I shall be more polite in future edit summaries. 211.28.237.149 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request: Nigel Kneale
Hello. I know you're probably snowed under requests, as you seem to be one of the "go to guys", as the Americans might say, for this sort of thing, but I was wondering whether, if you happened to get the time, you could possibly give Nigel Kneale a proofread? I currently have it up for peer review, and I'm really keen to try and push this one as an FAC, if the review goes well. I realise the article probably isnt really in your area of interest though, so I understand if you'd rather not. Anyway, thanks for your time. Angmering 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I look forward to your thoughts. Angmering 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this: I have made some edits and left a reply at the PR. Angmering 14:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Christ Illusion
Hi Yannismarou, I hope all is well and once again thanks for the helpful peer review comments on Christ Illusion. I wish to submit the article for FAC very soon, and was hoping you could give it the once over to make sure there are no visible problems within the article. If you're too busy, then that's fine - anything you can say regarding the article is fine, whether it be critical or an appraisal. Thanks! I'm buzzing others from the peer review with this same message also, so didn't think you wanted to feel left out. :) LuciferMorgan 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Biography Coordination Council
In the absnce of further discussion on the talk page, I went ahead and created a coordination council page. Check it out, make adjustments, and given your work on peer review, I think you're the natural coordinator for that department. - Mocko13 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hey there, thanks again for the review of Thomas Dixon, Jr., on a similar note, I've seen some of the work you've done on other articles and I'm sure that you can help me... Check this out if you can, whenever you get a minute. User:HammerHeadHuman/Sandbox Thanks - HammerHeadHuman (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem solved, thanks anyway. - HammerHeadHuman (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kind request
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to; do you need my help with the project banner issue, or something else? Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject banners
How would you feel about an option like this one: User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14? -- Ned Scott 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Manuel I Komnenos
Kind request: could you do some of your copy-editing work in Manuel I Komnenos article? It is in WP:FARC right now, and I try to keep it featured. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I would, but I am in the beginning of university semester and life generally is in turmoil. I also work very very slowly. The League of Copyeditors might be able to do this for you. If I get a good night's sleep and things calm down, I'll assist you however I can. Brainmuncher 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Abdullah Öcalan Case
Isn't it an important event to mention (at least at the Timeline part) in Greco-Turkish Relations, the role of Greek embassy in Nairobi international airport Kenya, when he captured in an operation by MIT, 1999? (SEY01 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:19, 1 March 2007 (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 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hagermanbot
You may be interested in the following trick for avoiding the annoying Hagermanbot following you around when you post e.g. the WPHOG gazette: add somewhere in the edit summary "!NOSIGN!" and it will pass! NikoSilver 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to offer your input in Talk:Sparta? A disruptive editor, who has never shown prior interest on the article, has been rv-warring over referenced information that he simply doesn't agree with. He only participated in Talk after I urged him to, though this never stopped his edit-warring. I assumed good faith and spent my time on trying to reason with him, but seeing how his argumenation and beliefs change by the minute, I'm getting tired. His latest activity involves blanking out entire sections of referenced information, and mixing around the ref tags according to his personal preference. This is near the border of simple vandalism. Miskin 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot
I have set some rules for Greece. So the next night then I will run the bot I will see the results (hopefully). When the search result would look useable, I will paste the result file to the board.

Please review the rules: User:AlexNewArtBot/Greece. The main challenge is the prominence of Greek culture that may lead to high numbers of false positive. We do not want to report all the mathematical articles with Greek letters, or all "Spartan Gyms", etc. Lets experiment until we would get something useful. E.g. with the Greek letterings, I decided that one Greek letter is mathematics, three in a row is a fraternity but four or more in a row is something Greek. Still I lowered the points score for the rule to four instead of default ten and inhibited it with words like motto. Alex Bakharev 00:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

remember me?
Howdy! Sorry I've been gone so long! I got caught up in the holidays and then I've had a family emergency which took me away-- wanted to find out how WPBIO was doing and if there are any hot issues right now? I guess I want to find out if there are still tasks to do for WPBIO that I can resume? Cheers! --plange 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Work on justice?
I like your work to the Law article. May you please help with the justice article, as its present state is very sorry, as well as ironic.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"I don't care what other articles say"
replying to your post on my talk page: Well, since I believe you are an editor, you should care that what you wrote on 11 September in the Lysicles article is inaccurate: "According to Aeschines Socraticus, Lysicles married Aspasia after Pericles's death". Perhaps you should correct it now.

In the Aspasia article there is a note

β. ^ According to Debra Nails, Professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, if Aspasia was not a free woman, the decree to legitimize her son with Pericles and the later marriage to Lysicles would almost certainly have been impossible

This implies there was a marriage. Tony 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

FAC Maximus the Confessor
I have responded to your request for a theology section for [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maximus the Confessor|FAC Maximus] (along with other suggestions). Please check the article and see if this now meets the FA criteria. Thanks for your helpful comments, I think they have made for a better article. -- Pastordavid 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dave Lombardo
Hello Yannismarou, a few weeks ago you left some comments on the Dave Lombardo peer-review here. I was hoping if you have some spare time you could maybe take another look, the prose is better but not quite the best and i haven't been able to find a decent picture and your comments are very helpful. If you're busy that's fine, thanks for your time :) M3tal H3ad 10:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Please refrain from personal attacks. I did NOT, repeat NOT say anything impolite or dishonest. I do not take kindly to allegations about my character. NN 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Improper Use of Admin Privileges
You became involved in a dispute over the use of the word superpower to describe Sparta. You thought it was proper, I thought it was not. When consensus could not be reached, you used your Admin privileges, blocked me from editing, unprotected the page, inserted a version proposed by NikoSiver (who you were in agreement with but whose views were opposed by those thinking the use of the word superpower improper). Isn't this a misuse of Admin privileges? NN 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yanni → WP:NOFEEDING.--Domitius 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Heads up there's now an ANI thread he's started on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the AN/I board under the heading "Abuse of Admin Privileges by Yannismarou", here is the link NN 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a neutral admin, I was looking through Nayan Nev's edit history, and it seems that your block may not have been appropriate. I certainly did not see any WP:POINT. Is it possible that you being Greek may have influenced your judgment? Or did I miss something, in this case please let me know. On a side note, being an admin also includes being human, and hence making occasional errors. That has happened to me, too. Please take a night of sleep, read some comments on the WP:ANI, look at this block again, and then decide if you still support the block or not. Many thanks and best wishes -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with Chris73. This was a wildly inappropriate block, as you were in a content dispute with NN. I'm certainly not seeing any violation of WP:POINT, and think, at the very least, an apology is in order from you (and Domitius for basically calling NN a troll on your talk page). AniMate 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not going to be forthcoming I'm afraid. In my experience people are entitled to consider people who wiki-stalk to be trolls.--Domitius 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As another neutral admin... This appears to have been a block under false pretenses (no WP:POINT in evidence) to gain advantage in a content dispute which is expressly prohibited by WP:BLOCK. Georgewilliamherbert 06:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yanno, anoixe to tahydromiko kuti su.--Domitius 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you made a mistake. You admitted it, apologized and offered a resolution. Too bad "don't bite the newbies" doesn't apply to new admins. Of course it takes a while to get the hang of things. You'll be a better admin for Wikipedia in the long run for having made an error, and, mostly for having resolved it by acknowledging the impropriety of your actions. I didn't read the complaints or the issue, as it appears a sufficient number of people are on top of that. I did read your apology, though. You did that well. Would that more could. KP Botany 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with KP, and adding my moral support. Apologies do work; learn from it and move on. People who know you will continue to respect you. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As the "other" party in the dispute, I would like to thank Yannismarou for his recent help to me on another article. Best Regards, NN 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar award for my biography peer-reviewing! I noticed that you do a fair bit yourself. For a while, it seemed to be only you! Awadewit 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

World Trade Organization Edits
Regarding your recent edits on World Trade Organization - is there a wikipedia policy or guide regarding the distinction between notes and references? Personally I think it makes it more difficult to find the proper citations for the information. If the changes you implemented are the way the page should be done they still need to be implemented consistently throughout the article, so any clarification would be helpful. Thanks --Iliaskarim 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Feeder (band) peer review
Hi!, thanks for your very important pointers you made on the peer review for Feeder (band). I have now acted on your points and given the article a complete re-write with not so many citations in the article as previous. Before I put too many in and ruined the feel of reading the article.

I have looked at some featured articles and good articles for an idea how to do it best. I have still kept the original and so I can revert and clean that one up just in case.

If possible, could you please check the new version of the article over and tell me if there's any problems and things I've missed that needs doing?.

Many thanks Marcus Bowen 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi!, thanks for the addition to the peer review feedback. I have now made the influences section a prose, what do you think of the article as a whole? :).

Marcus Bowen 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again!, thanks for your advice regarding a good article nomination!. I have now added the article to the nominations list :-).

Marcus Bowen 19:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC
Thank you for your support and comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status. I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well. And let me say, given the recent events discussed on your talk page, that I have found you to be a fair and understanding admin. I know you are very busy with the Greek WP, but if you ever have time we could always use more input from those with an eastern perspective at WP Saints (we tend to be heavily weighted toward the Western/Latin side). Again, thanks. -- Pastordavid 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Yanni. I appreciate the message. It's rather quiet now, after a small onslaught in some very important articles. I think we may or may not form a committee but as a minimum we should have some kind of coordination, formal or informal. Last time for example, especially in Metapolitefsi and Polytechneio, (even Kostas Georgakis), I made a lot of reversions and still I'm not quite sure if I succeeded completely. Knowing that I have some support from the project will help make this onerous task more tractable. As well we assigned these articles a class rating. If not assessed periodically and methodically who knows to what class would they descend if left unattended. In an open project like Wikipedia this is especially difficult. Maybe we can devise a warning system and watch important articles like Polytechneio, Junta etc. more closely than we have done in the past because I believe that if people know that articles are watched they are less likely to be tempted to do large scale re-editing. I have to confess that I became busy editing some fan articles like Fantômas (film) etc. and I wasn't paying attention to the core Greek articles for some time. Anyway thanks for the support and I will be in touch should another edit wave appear. Take care for now και στο επανιδείν. Tasos. (Dr.K. 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

William Monahan article at FAC
Hello Yanni. You kindly reviewed my previous article on Aaron Sorkin while it was at WP:FAC. Would you mind reviewing and commenting on my recent article on screenwriter William Monahan? Any comments you might have would be appreciated.-BillDeanCarter 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Park
Hi there. First of all, I don't think I have said it, for which I am sorry- thanks a lot for reviewing this article. It was quite a while ago, and it was here. Now, I have come back to working on this article in a big way, and I am convinced that this could be a featured article before long. I want your opinion- do you think it would be best to talk about the challenges to the evidence offered by his supporters seperately to the details about the prosecuting evidence, or do you think that it should be intergrated with the information on the evidence against? To rephrase, should I have an 'Evidence' heading, followed by a 'Criticism of evidence' heading, or should I write it in one block- 'Evidence a was that... the prosecution said... however, critics of the prosecution have said that...'

On another note, I have completely rewritten the criticism of the evidence, sourcing it from more reliable sources, and I intend to expand the section on the evidence agaisnt him, as well as writing a biography section. However, I don't want to start either of these before deciding which method to write the article with. Thanks. J Milburn 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plato assessment
I'm awfully sorry, but Start-class for Plato is just simply silly. Take a look at Socrates for instance, another B-class article, but definitely worse than Plato. B-class doesn't mean everything is allright, B-class articles can have serious problems with adhering to Wikipedia standards. I'm not known for my lenience in assessing articles, but start-class is way too harsh. I'll not go into a revert war, but I'll put it up for a reassessment by a (or several) neutral third part(y)(ies). I will abide by their judgement, I hope you will too. Er rab ee 10:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked Mocko13 to look at it. He should be the ideal neutral third party, as he has assessed many biography articles and is a member of WikiProjects Classical Greece and Rome, which should mean he has more than average knowledge about the subject. I do not question your value to the article itself, or to the WPBiography project, and I have assessed many articles myself, not just for WPBiography, but also for the Novels project and the Russia project. Er rab ee 10:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom on Dispute settlement in the WTO
Hello,

Thanks for creating article on Dispute settlement in the WTO. Just for your information, I have nominated a DYK on this article, by having the following hook.


 * ...that the dispute settlement system in the World Trade Organization is characterized as the most adjudicative mechanism in the world?

Thanks, - KNM Talk 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Resolving a conflict
I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Cleinias
I didn't change the first one, which was already 'Kleinias'; I changed the second one to make it consistent with the first. I didn't insist anything. RedRabbit1983 10:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Feedback/opinions needed on Bibliography for Hrant Dink
Yanni, would you mind giving me your opinion regarding this? Thx! --Free smyrnan 12:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do today or tomorrow.--Yannismarou 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Greece criteria
Geia sou, Yanni. I'm not sure what the criteria are for Wikiprojects, so I was wondering why you added the Wikiproject Greece tag to Emanuel Karasu/Carasso. Karasu was born in Ottoman Salonika, was not ethnically Greek (he was Jewish), was a member of the Young Turks, and considered himself Turkish first and Jewish second (somehow I doubt he thought of himself as Greek third...). I suspect he left Salonika to escape from the Greek troops in 1912, as apparently his nephew Isaac Carasso did. Of course, he is of interest for Greek history, but then Ataturk is of even more interest for Greek history, and he, too, was born in Ottoman Salonika.... For that matter, the Truman Doctrine is of critical importance to Greek history....  What exactly are the criteria for adding this tag? --Macrakis 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FAR Note
I've been traveling and barely able to keep up, but I just wanted to note that I don't look for any specific "density" or "volume" of citations on articles. I look for citations where needed; it is true that medical articles will often have almost every sentence cited (often more than one cite per sentence), and BLPs often need to be heavily cited, but other than that, I never have a specific density in mind. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; I've been traveling.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Podcast interview
Hi there, I'm one of the panelists on the weekly podcast Wikipedia Weekly and I was wondering if you would be interested in being interviewed for a short segment as part of our effort to showcase the different personalities, projects and world-views of wikipedians. If you've not heard of us before, I suggest you go to our main site here and see what you think. We spend most of the time discussing the news, but we're trying to make it a bit more "personal" too by bringing in people like you.

It would be especially good if you could also recomend an editor from Turkey or Macedonia who could come on the interview at the same time and we could discuss how the history of either of those conflicts has affected WP and what has been the result. Otherwise, we'd like to hear about the specific differences in policy/practice on the Greek WP (I assume you're an editor there too?) and, on a lighter note, your impression of the HUGE jump in page views to articles related to the Battle of Thermopylae as a result of the release of the film 300.

You might want to listen to episode 15 (available from the above link) in which I interview two editor from India and Bangladesh in a similar way. However, this time we would like to keep it as an article within a normal episode rather than a whole episode in itself.

We record using Skype so you would need a broadband connection, that programme and a microphone. Tell me what you think. Witty lama 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I got the same message, so what do you think? Baristarim 07:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. Glad to see you're onboard with this! Why don't (both) you contact me on Skype at "Wittylama" and we can work out a record time there. I can also bring you into the convesation message board for coordinating upcoming content. We can also discuss format (length of interview) and content (proposed /topicsquestions) there. In the mean time, I recomend you listen to a couple of previous episodes (especially ep. 15 which was an extended interview I did along similar lines of interest to here). Witty lama 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't have to BUY a microphone, but simply borrow one? Another option is anyone you know who has a macbook or macbook pro as they have inbuilt microphones that are quite good. In the mean time, you don't need a mic to contact me at skype - we only actually call each other when we're proucing the interview. add me as a contact and we can co-ordinate via "chat" there. Witty lama 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no probelems :) Baristarim 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Τονυ εσοπι
Φίλε Καλημέρα. Διάβασα το μήνυμά σου και σου απαντώ πολύ ευχαρίστως. Καταρχήν σαν χρήστη της Αγγλικής Βικιπαίδειας σε ήξερα, σαν διαχειριστή της όχι.Να ξεκαθαρίσω, και συγνώμη αλλα δεν ξέρω άλλη γλώσσα εκτος την Ελληνική, ξέρω σκόρπιες λέξης και καταλαβαίνω λίγα αγγλικά είχα κάνη σε φροντίστήριο πολύ μικρός. Σχετικά με τους διαχειριστές, προτείνει καποιος κάποιον , εγω το έκανα για κάποιον, και όποιος χρήστης θέλει ψηφίζη η αρνητικά ή θετικά. Μέχρι τώρα όλοι οι υποψήφιοι βγήκαν χωρίς αρνητική ψήφο διαχειριστές. Αυτό πιστεύω ότι οφείλετε ότι σαν χρήστες είχαν μεγάλη συνεισφορά ήταν γνωστοί στους υπόλοιπους χρήστες όλοι τους έδιναν άμεσα την βοηθειά τους σε όποιον το ζητούσε αλλα και χωρίς να το ζητήση. Άλλωστε ήταν και είναι άτομα καλά και φιλικά με όλους τους χρήστες και δικαιολογημένα είναι διαχειριστές.Βέβαια υπάρχουν κάποιες κόντρες με χρήστες κάποιες ύβρεις (μικρές) ε αυτά φυσιολογικά είναι. Και εγώ εχω τσακωθή άπειρες φορές μαζί τους αλλά αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι δεν τους εκτιμώ και δεν τους εμπιστεύομαι σαν διαχειριστές.Σχετικά με το ότι έχουμε λίγους διαχειριστές δεν νομίζω ότι είναι λάθος αλλά για να αυξηθούν θα πρέπει και να υπάρχουν χρήστες ικανοί να γίνουν διαχειριστές, αν δεν υπάρχουν άστους καλύτερα λίγους και καλούς. Τωρα για να συμετάσχω σε αυτη την συζήτηση ,ευχαριστώ θα το ήθελ πολύ, αλλά οι υπόλοιποι θα ξέρουν όλοι Ελληνικά ;;;;;. -- t o n y e s o p i talk 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kάλημέρα. Ρίξε σε παρακαλώ μια ματιά εδώ Category:Greek football clubs δεν ξέρω αγγλικά για να βάλω το πρότυπο συγχώνευσης ,Υπάρχουν δύο άρθρα για τον ίδιο σύλλογο τον Παναθηναικό. -- t o n y e s o p i talk 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To ένα είναι για όλο το σύλλογο το άλλο είναι για το ποδόσφαιρο. Υπάρχει ξεχωριστό άρθρο και για το τμήμα μπάσκετ. 'Εβαλα το merge tag και, αν 8ες, μπορείς να ξεκινήσεις σχετική συζήτηση στο discuss του Panathinaikos που σε στέλνει.--Yannismarou 09:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Laertes
alright, Yannismarou obviously it wasnt you who changed the article but since it is being re edited so many times on a daily basis by your co patriots, it is not so easy to keep its account about who did what, anyway my apologies--laertes d 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

greek wikipedia input
Γεια σου Γιάννη και χίλια συγνώμη για την καθυστέρηση. Δεν ξέρω τι ακριβώς πρέπει ν' απαντήσω για την ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια. Γενικώς, έντονη δραστηριότητα άρχισε να έχει περίπου τα τελευταία δυο χρόνια και πολύ έντονη περίπου από το καλοκαίρι (τα edits ξεπερούν πλέον τα 1.000 τη μέρα νομίζω). Όταν γράφτηκα εγώ, το Σεπτέμβρη του '05, είχε 5.000 άρθρα, έκλεισε τα 10.000 το Μάιο του '06 και σε λιγότερο από ένα χρόνο διπλασιάστηκε φτάνοντας τα 20.000 (μέσα Μαρτίου '07). Το crew είναι περίπου 30-50 ενεργοί χρήστες (εναλασσόμενοι βέβαια κατά 50% περίπου-οι "μόνιμοι" είναι γύρω στους 15-20) και αρκετοί ακόμα που γράφουν π.χ. έναν κύκλο συγκεκριμένης θεματολογίας και μετά δεν επανεμφανίζονται.

Πάρα πολλές διαμάχες δεν έχουμε -υπήρξε μια κόντρα που συνεχιζόταν για αρκετό καιρό για ορισμένα θέματα πίστης ανάμεσα σε συγκεκριμένους χρήστες, αλλά ευτυχώς τα πράγματα φαίνεται να έχουν εξομαλυνθεί. Μικροτσακωμοί υπάρχουν κατά καιρούς, όπως είναι φυσικό σε κάθε wiki:) Αποχωρήσεις χρηστών είναι σχετικά σπάνιες, αλλά όχι ανύπαρκτες. Θεσμός ban δεν υπάρχει, ενώ δεν χρειάστηκε μέχρι τώρα να ζητήσουμε και checkuser. Έχουμε 11 διαχειριστές, από τους οποίους οκτώ ενεργοί, οι οποίοι, απ' όσο μπορώ να καταλάβω, έχουν γενικά την αποδοχή των χρηστών. Γενικώς το κλίμα είναι συνήθως ήρεμο.

Ένα θέμα που έχει έντονα απασχολήσει την κοινότητα είναι αυτό της notability: έχω την αίσθηση ότι έχουμε κάπως πιο αυστηρά κριτήρια από την αγγλική π.χ. ή ορισμένες άλλες Βικιπαίδειες (πράγμα με το οποίο συμφωνώ, καθώς είμαι λίγο deletionist!) και αρκετές διαγραφές για Notability γίνονται μετά από αρκετή συζήτηση, μερικές φορές έντονη. Παλεύουμε σιγά-σιγά να διαμορφώσουμε συγκεκριμένες πολιτικές γύρω από διάφορα θέματα (μουσική, βιογραφίες, περιοδικά κλπ).

Όσον αφορά την ποιότητα, υπάρχουν ακόμα πολλά περιθώρια ανάπτυξης. Το μέσο μέγεθος άρθρου είναι γύρω στα 2kB, και τα δικά μας Featured (Αξιόλογα Άρθρα) είναι περίπου κάτι ανάμεσα σε Α και FΑ Class άρθρα της αγγλικής (υπάρχουν βέβαια μερικές φορές και καλύτερα από τα FA της αγγλικής). Εδώ να σημειώσω ότι μέχρι πρόσφατα είχαμε δυο διαδικασίες, μια για Επιλεγμένα Άρθρα που εμπαιναν στην Κύρια Σελίδα, και είχαν κάπως πιο χαλαρά κριτήρια από τα Αξιόλογα, και μια για Αξιόλογα Άρθρα (με κριτήρια ανάλογα με τα FA), οπότε το φθινόπωρο καταργήσαμε τα πρώτα και δώσαμε βάρος στα δεύτερα, από τα οποία έχουν ψηφιστεί 28 (υπάρχουν βέβαια και άλλα που δεν έχουν περάσει ακόμα, και καμιά 50αριά Επιλεγμένα). Έχυμε κάνει καλή δουλειά με τις κατηγορίες, με περίπου 92% των άρθρων κατηγοριοποιημένα. Υπάρχουν αρκετά άρθρα για θέματα που έχουν σχέση με θεωρητικές επιστήμες (φιλολογία/ιστορία κλπ) ενώ στις θετικές είμαστε λίγο πίσω. Απ' όσο μπορώ να ξέρω δεν υπάρχουν άλλα wikies ελληνικής θεματολογίας, εκτός από τη Βικιθήκη και τη Βικιπαίδεια στα Αρχαία, που έγιναν προτάσεις για να ξεκινήσουν αλλά τελικά απορρίφθηκαν με βάση το Meta:Language proposal policy.

Αυτά γενικά μπορώ να σκεφτώ, αν θες κάτι άλλο άσε μου μήνυμα. Με την ευκαιρία, μπράβο για το Project Greece, ελπίζω να μπορέσω να βοηθήσω κάπως σε λίγο καιρό. Ελπίζω να σε βοήθησα κάπως, και συγνώμη κ πάλι για την καθυστέρηση. Φιλικά, Badseed 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Γιάννη καλησπέρα. Άργησα να σου απαντήσω γιατί δυστυχώς με πετυχαίνεις σε μία περίοδο που είμαι λίγο πιεσμένος και ο χρόνος μου είναι γενικά αρκετά περιορισμένος. Θα ήθελα να σε βοηθήσω όσο μπορώ για το podcasting, σχετικά με τη λειτουργία της ελληνικής Βικιπαίδειας, αλλά θα με διευκόλυνε αν υπήρχαν συγκεκριμένες ερωτήσεις ή θέματα προς συζήτηση. Όπως ανέφερε και ο Badseed, μια αξιοσημείωτη διαφοροποίηση στην ελληνική είναι πως υπάρχει μάλλον η τάση να είμαστε λίγο πιο αυστηροί σε ζητήματα που άπτονται της σπουδαιότητας των άρθρων. Σχετικά πρόσφατα δημιουργήθηκε η οδηγία w:el:Βικιπαίδεια:Σπουδαιότητα και λογικά στο μέλλον θα επεκταθεί σε εξειδικευμένα θέματα (για μουσικούς/συγκροτήματα, άρθρα για δίσκους κ.λπ.). Προς το παρόν υπάρχουν εξειδικευμένες οδηγίες για βιογραφίες, πανεπιστημιακούς και τεύχη περιοδικών. Π.χ. σύμφωνα με την ελληνική οδηγία, έχουμε συμφωνήσει πως για τεύχη περιοδικών ή κόμικς, η Βικιπαίδεια μπορεί να έχει άρθρο και για κάποιο/α ιδιαίτερα αξιοσημείωτο/α τεύχος/η περιοδικού με αναγνωρισμένη καλλιτεχνική, ιστορική ή επιστημονική αξία και για τα οποία υπάρχουν αναφορές σε τρίτες ανεξάρτητες πηγές, αλλά κατά κανόνα όχι και για κάθε τεύχος του περιοδικού. Η ίδια φιλοσοφία λογικά θα ισχύσει και για επεισόδια τηλεοπτικών σειρών, τα οποία στην αγγλική συχνά έχουν ξεχωριστό άρθρο. Έχουν γίνει αρκετές σχετικές συζητήσεις. Στην ελληνική δεν υπάρχει μέχρι στιγμής mediation ή arbitration όπως στην αγγλική (δεν είμαι βέβαια σίγουρος ότι χρειάζονται στην παρούσα φάση και με την ανάπτυξη που έχει μέχρι σήμερα η Βικιπαίδεια). Ένα ζήτημα που νομίζω ότι απασχολεί την ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια είναι η συχνή ανάρτηση άρθρων (ή εικόνων) που προέρχονται από άλλες ιστοσελίδες και αποτελούν παραβιάσεις copyright. Δεν γνωρίζω σε τι έκταση συμβαίνει αυτό στην αγγλική ή αλλού, αλλά στην ελληνική πιστεύω ότι είναι αρκετά συχνό φαινόμενο. Διαγράφονται αρκετά τέτοια άρθρα ενώ εδώ και μερικούς μήνες τρεις διαχειριστές λειτουργούμε το OTRS (Geraki, Badseed και εγώ) για τη διαχείριση των αδειών. Άλλες ιδιαιτερότητες δεν μου έρχονται αυτή τη στιγμή στο μυαλό. Δεν ξέρω αν είναι χρήσιμες πληροφορίες τα παραπάνω αλλά ίσως μπορούν να συζητηθούν. Σε ότι αφορά τα στατιστικά στοιχεία, έχουμε περίπου 8500 εγγεγραμμένους χρήστες (11 διαχειριστές, 6 από αυτούς είναι ενεργοί το τελευταίο διάστημα) και περίπου 30 πολύ ενεργούς χρήστες (>100 edits/month). Περισσότερα βέβαια μπορείς να βρεις στα στατιστικά. Η Βικιθήκη πρόσφατα ξεπέρασε τις 1000 σελίδες ενώ και το Βικιλεξικό έχει νομίζω σχετικά γρήγορη ανάπτυξη. Σχετικά με άλλα ελληνικά wiki/εγκυκλοπαίδειες που λειτουργούν, θα μπορούσα να αναφέρω τη Livepedia (http://www.livepedia.gr) που είναι σχεδόν πανοποιότυπο εγχείρημα, επίσης GFDL. Aρκετά άρθρα της Βικιπαίδειας έχουν μεταφερθεί εκεί (πρόσφατα μεταφέρθηκαν και όλες οι εικόνες), αλλά και εμείς έχουμε περίπου 250 άρθρα που μεταφέρθηκαν από τη Livepedia. Συγχαρητήρια για τα πολύ ωραία FA στα οποία συμμετείχες και ελπίζω να σε βλέπουμε πιο συχνά στην ελληνική :) -- D a d a  10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Συμπληρώνω επίσης ότι η Βικιπαίδεια έχει κατά καιρούς παρουσιαστεί στον ελληνικό τύπο (βλ. w:el:Βικιπαίδεια:Δημοσιεύματα. -- D a d a 10:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Για να συμπληρώσω τους προηγούμενους, η Livepedia έχει πάρει άλλη κατεύθυνση, ως host κειμένων από υπάρχουσες εκδόσεις, προωθώντας την ιδέα του wiki, με άλλο τρόπο από τη συμμετοχική γραφή που πρεσβεύει το εγχείρημα wikipedia. Το επιχειρηματικό μοντέλο της Livepedia, είναι: "Το γράψατε, το δημοσιεύσατε, κερδίσατε κάποια χρήματα, τώρα αφήστε το εδώ, είτε πλήρως ελεύθερο είτε χωρίς δυνατότητα αλλαγής, τουλάχιστο να σας διαφημίζει".

Για να γυρίσω στη Βικιπαίδεια, υπάρχει σημαντική προσπάθεια για άρθρα με NPOV. Οι διορθω-μάχες που και που εμφανίζονται άλλοτε με ένταση (και αποκλεισμούς), άλλοτε πολιτισμένα. Κάτι σημαντικό είναι ότι εκτός από τον σκληρό πυρήνα των 30 περίπου χρηστών, υπάρχουν αρκετοί που συνεισφέρουν αραιότερα και κάποιοι που συνεισφέρουν μέσω IP, χωρίς να εγγραφούν. Ορισμένοι από αυτούς κάνουν την πλάκα τους, αλλά υπάρχουν αρκετοί που κάνουν παρεμβάσεις, γράφουν άρθρα και σοβαρές παρατηρήσεις. Πλάκα-πλάκα, με 20-21.000 άρθρα, έχουμε κάνει μόνο από την αρχή του χρόνου (ούτε τρεις μήνες) 2.500 χιλιάδες διαγραφές!!! Ακόμη κάτι ενδιαφέρον, έχουμε και μια ομάδα ενεργών ξονόγλωσσων χρηστών (ένα Γερμανό που έζησε στην Ελλάδα, ένα Βούλγαρο νομίζω, ένα Ρώσο και ίσως κάποιους που ξέχασα, που όλοι χωρίς τέλεια ελληνικά, τα κουτσοκαταφέρνουν και συνεισφέρουν) Καλή συνέντευξη, δε θα συμμετάσχω, έγραψα όμως αυτά τα λίγα για υποστήριξη.--FocalPoint 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Σίγουρα θα βοηθούσαν οι συγκεκριμένες ερωτήσεις, αλλά νομίζω ότι από τα παραπάνω μπορείς να έχεις μια εικόνα της Βικιπαίδειας number based. Όσον αφορά στη φιλοσοφία της, σίγουρα διαμορφώνεται βάσει των γενικών προδιαγραφών στις οποίες στηρίζεται η αγγλική (αμερικανική) Βικιπαίδεια, χάρη σε εκείνους που την αποδέχονται αβίαστα. Προσωπικά ως χρήστης δεν έχω και μεγάλη εμπιστοσύνη στην πολιτική της Wikipedia, ούτε καν στις βλέψεις -ατομικές ή συλλογικές- υπό τις οποίες συγκροτείται το οικοδόμημα. Για να είμαι απόλυτα ειλικρινής δεν συμφωνώ καν με την εμπορεματική φιλοσοφία της GFDL. Εντούτοις η wikipedia -την παρακαολουθώ από τα πρώτα της βήματα- παραμένει ένα εντυπωσιακό συμμετοχικό εγχείρημα και κυρίως ένα εργαλείο για το ευρύ κοινό -το τελευταίο με ώθησε σε ενεργή συμμετοχή. Η ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια που σε ενδιαφέρει άμεσα, παρουσιάζει επί του παρόντος εξαιρετικές κατά την άποψή μου ανομοιότητες σε ζητήματα ποιότητας, έκτασης λημμάτων, επαλήθευσης και συναφών παραμέτρων που ρυθμίζουν τη χρηστικότητα του εγκυκλοπαιδικού εργαλείου. Φυσικά με την πάροδο του χρόνου οι διαφορές θα εξομαλυνθούν και με αρκετή δουλειά η Βικιπαίδεια θα γίνει αξιόπιστη. Στη συγκεκριμένη περίοδο είναι πολλές οι POV απόψεις, κυρίως σε ζητήματα θρησκευτικού ενδιαφέροντος, αρκετές οι τάσεις αυτοδιαφήμισης σε ζητήματα καλλιτεχνικού ενδιαφέροντος -εξ ου και η περισσή αυστηρότητα- ή προβολής ιδεολογιών. Επί της ουσίας, όμως, δεν πιστεύω ότι η Wikipedia συνολικά έχει επιλύσει τα συγκεκριμένα ζητήματα, οπότε δεν ανησυχώ ιδιαίτερα για την ελληνική εκδοχή της. BTW χρειάζονται ειδικοί και αυτό κάνει τη συνεισφορά σου επιθυμητή, στους ρυθμύς που μπορείς φυσικά. Αν για κάποιο λόγο θέλεις διευκρινίσεις σε όσα έγραψα, στη διάθεσή σου. Φιλικά --Kalogeropoulos 10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 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 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re
Hey, what's up.. I am sorry I forgot to reply to you about the podcast. Beginning of this week (Monday, Tuesday) should be fine. I will contact wittylama over Skype as well. Cheers! Baristarim 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)