User talk:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with ΚΕΚΡΩΨ.  Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion with ΚΕΚΡΩΨ or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ΚΕΚΡΩΨ

Current talk page

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

Full list:

1 • 2 -  ...

Thanks

Thanks for your reeditionMustafa Akalp 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Username

Your user name may be in violation of Wikipedia's Username Policy:

Names with non-Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.

Please consider Changing your Username or it may be reported. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization, website or non-Latin characters, or is otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. Wikipedia:Username provides guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may edit your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible — if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation (see the list of administrators).

If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions: (1) Add {{unblock-un|new username}} to your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page. (2) Soon, an admin may come to unblock you. (3) You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on Wikipedia:Changing username before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is a lot easier to create a new account.

• I've unblocked you to allow you to change username. The procedure is above (you have more than enough edits to qualify). Please request the change before you make any other edits, just on the basis that any other edits you make may lead to someone else blocking you for your username... it's very circular! Good luck! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As requested, I have renamed you as User:Kékrōps. You may now like to move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 02:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits to country articles

May you please explain your reasoning in replacing up-to-date data with out-dated data for all these countries, as well as removing verifiability references from these articles? I see no sense in it and would like to see your reasoning before committing to reverting all these edits. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 13:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please check your facts before levelling such accusations in future. I have replaced the old HDI figures with the most up-to-date data, contained in the Human Development Report released only two days ago by the UNDP. See for yourself here if any of the data I have entered is incorrect. Finally, please note that the report, while released on 9 November 2006, was compiled on the basis of 2004 data.--Kékrōps 13:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy tiger! All I did was ask for clarifications - had I assumed bad faith I would not have bothered to ask why you did it! I saw a 2005 figure change into a 2004 figure and only raised a concern. You did not provide a reference link for verification so you cannot blame me for my concerns. Btw, please provide me with a reference link so I can include it in the Malta article. Thanks. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 14:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that I replaced "up-to-date data with out-dated data" is a rather serious accusation on Wikipedia. The "2005" figure was in fact the 2003 figure contained in last year's report; it is an easy mistake to make, but you'll find that almost every other country had 2003 as the date of the old data. I simply corrected that error while updating to the newly-released figures for 2004. In any case, including a reference link to the very large UNDP file in every country infobox is entirely unnecessary as the reader can simply obtain the material from the external links section of the relevant article, namely Human Development Index, which the infobox does link to. No other country infobox contains a separate external link to the UNDP site, and I see no reason why Malta should be an exception.--Kékrōps 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for the aggressive wording, which was a mistake on my part. As I said, I was decieved by the erraneous figure on tha Malta page, and it was not my intention to assume bad faith. While I partly agree with your argument for not including a reference to the articles, I think that in the spirit of WP:VERIFY an extra reference does no harm. Malta was refused FA status because of its lack of verifiability, and while one missing reference does no difference in this aspect, I still think that it is a plus to verifiability and shall add a link to the HDI article in the references section. Again, my apologies. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 22:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, for the sake of consistency, could you go through and add the same link to every country infobox, not just Malta's?--Kékrōps 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

K. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Snake huh?

Poisonous too? What's with the name? And why did you choose to highlight that Ψ in your sig, while Poseidon's trident lost to Athena's lance? The latter would certainly be more compatible with your awkward shape, you "face with a tail"... NikoSilver 22:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But a big Ψ is always better than a small one, don't you find? ;)·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Same would apply to a big K, I presume. Micro-K/Ψ guys would argue that it's not the size of the waves, but the motion of the ocean..." I say size does matter! NikoSilver 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You're incorrigible. What's your animal, by the way? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would be pig, but don't advertise that please. :-) On the western astrology, my zodiac is Leo; same is my horoscope?/(Ωροσκόπος I mean), I've been told. Those planets conspired for my birth! In any case, I believe in actions rather than profecies, and I find that these practices aim to comfort (and exploit) the weak. I prefer reading the cartoon sections... PS. Model '78, aren't we? I am '71. NikoSilver 13:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice, that makes us mortal enemies according to the Chinese. I won't tell you my age because I don't want people here telling me I should act it, like they do in real life. Ωροσκόπος is ascendant or rising sign in English - confusing, I know. Don't misinterpret the nature of astrology; all it does is tell you what you're predisposed to - it says nothing about what you will choose to do with that information in the real world. It is a free will universe after all and you're quite right in saying that actions will always matter over anything else. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you corrected it by removing that hyphen. Maybe you should better add a "y" in the end, for obvious connotations. My opinion on astrology starts with a "Π" and is synonymous to their plural. NikoSilver 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue ones, you mean? Or are you confusing them with brushes? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Blue in pink vases, just like astrollogy. NikoSilver 15:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am sorry if I seemed a bit offensive the other day, but know that it was nothing personal nor it had something particular to do with your views.. Just try to understand that being compared to a Shoah-denying Nazi can touch a few nerves :) I am not offended at all by your views, it is just that this discussion has been going for so long at that page that it is actually stopping me and many users from doing other tasks on wiki.. It is like a discussion that never stops :) Believe me, I see your point, I really do.. However, I just would like to see the fine line between political activism and encycylopedic edition not crossed.. Look, the article is not even in GA status, there is so much work that needs to be done and that's why it is so hard sometimes to approach with 100 percent good faith to people who just drop by and create section headers Armenian Genocide with capital letters and saying: "why don't you mention what butchers Turkish people were?".. I hope you also understand that too.. The cooperation board has nothing to do with this.. I hope that, with time and observing my edits, you will see that.. Cheers! Baristarim 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Athene/a/ai

Thanks for your clarification on Athens. Have you got anything on whether the name of the city was actually understood to be the plural of the goddess' name? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search produced this, but I'm sure we can find something more decent. Ἀθῆναι is the obvious plural form of Ἀθήνη, which according to Liddell and Scott is in fact the generic Ionic name rather than the strictly Attic Ἀθηνᾶ, contracted from Ἀθηνάα or Ἀθηναία. Ἀθήνη occurs routinely in Attic texts, however, so it appears the two coexisted at some point until Ἀθηνᾶ prevailed in Attic/Koine and hence modern Greek. The motivation for my edit was purely to clarify the link between the singular and plural forms, but describing it as Attic was perhaps not entirely accurate in retrospect. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Imia/Kardak

Look, I know what you mean. However, Wikipedia cannot decide on their ownership. It is already linked to Aegean dispute. It is not in cat:Turkish isles either. So pls let's keep it at that and stop wasting our time! Seriously. There is no need to dispute as petty as this. The main of the article doesn't correspond to the article Dodecanese, nor does it correspond to Turkish Isles. It belongs to Aegean dispute, and that's where it should be. Please let's not wage a virtual Imia/Kardak war over this! Baristarim 09:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, if it's as petty as you say then you will just let it be, right? Your assertion that the islets are "grey zones" of undetermined sovereignty is not NPOV, it is precisely the Turkish POV. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article itself says "it is situated between Dodecanese and southwestern Turkey", so the current state of the article with only Aegean dispute cat corresponds with that, and is for the best.Baristarim 09:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. "Aegean dispute grey zones" is the Turkish POV. "The Dodecanese" is the Greek (and correct) POV. I have not removed the former, and you shouldn't seek to remove the latter. Let's leave it at that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not my assertion, it is how it has been reported all throughout the world by major news organizations. Please do not accuse me of being a POV pusher. I am sorry, but I will revert it in due time. Do you want me to add another cat:Turkish isles to it? Do you really want to start an edit war for this? Especially one that can include many other editors, both Greek and Turkish? Everybody knows these isles because of the dispute, we should be giving it as is. When there is a lasting settlement on the Aegean dispute, it will be properly categorized, I am sure. If I were a real POV pusher, I would have added the Turkish Isles cat instead of simply removing the other one, right? The Turkish POV is that they are Turkish! Have you been following the news?! If you want, I can add the Turkish Isles cat, and let's leave it at that, no?Baristarim 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whose POV is what, in Wikipedia we should be reporting the issue as is.. It is known by everyone as part of the "Aegean dispute".. Gees, it is really petty to be pushing for this u know, especially in the virtual world!Baristarim 09:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So why are you doing it, then? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant that it is petty to start an edit war to claim ownership of the island. My edits were to insure that it stayed neutral and didn't venture into dangerous waters, no pun intended. Avoid the straw man. As I said, if I were really pushing for POV, I would have added turkish isles cat since that is the "Turkish POV", as you said. However, I didn't. Many Turkish users would have been tempted by it, just like you were tempted to include it in Greece. See the difference? Nevertheless, I am not going to engage in childish ownership games and add a silly ownership cat. I will just stick to reverting the cat that you have added. That's all! Baristarim 09:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. In the meantime, you have 24 hours to cool off. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, no rush. Patience grasshopper :)Baristarim 09:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Careful, both of you. Kekrops, you've already violated 3RR, strictly speaking (your last removal of a category was also a revert, of a much earlier addition), and Baristarim, your announcement of continuing the revert war after waiting out 24 hours doesn't sound too good either. - As for categorizing the article for its "disputedness", my suggestion would be to rename the category. Certainly not everybody agrees that these islands are "Category:Aegean dispute grey zones", but I guess everybody would agree they form part of the "Category:Aegean dispute"? (and of course, they are rightly in Category:Disputed islands anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to see "Category:Aegean dispute grey zones" nominated for deletion, actually. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I was going to say just that, you beat me to it. It's filled with very few articles, and as the Aegean dispute article says, the problem is that there is no clear definition of which islands are "officially" disputed even from the Turkish side - Imia is really the only one that's definite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky comments

That really wasn't necessary. See WP:NPA. yandman 16:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the policing. He's been at it all day. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, somehow an editor that hadn't been editing suddenly came back to Wikipedia after 1.5 months and voted in this AfD. Cough cough. In any case, I am not going to beat a dead horse. There is no Greek-hysteria, and I am sorry that you feel that the board is ill-fated. Maybe true since most of those who signed up aren't doing to realize the potential of the task and notification pages. I am not the owner of that board and I really would appreciate it if others were taking some of the slack. I cannot be everywhere all the time. Me belonging to a board doesn't mean I will act like Jesus and turn the other cheek when stuff hits the fan! Baristarim 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the board is ill-fated; it was conceived by someone who attempts to denigrate the Greeks at every opportunity as an "artificial" nation "created" in the 19^th century while at the same time proclaiming the unbroken continuity of his own tribe. When you express such basic contempt for the people you purport to be interested in cooperating with, you cannot seriously expect any result but failure. That is the reason I didn't sign up in the first place - I can see through the bullshit. After your recent comments it is achingly clear that I was right all along. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again. Try to help defuse these situations, instead of inflaming them. Thanks. yandman 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did his repeated taunts of "lies and distortion" not violate WP:NPA? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I really do suggest that you cut down on stalking. Looking for AfDs, CfDs and TfDs by checking into the contributions lists of others, friendly or not, constitues stalking and is disruptive. There is no way this can happen with a ten minute difference out of the blue [1] and [2]. If you keep this up, I will definitely be reporting this behavior. Baristarim 21:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you insinuating Baristarim? Sounds very cryptic and ambiguous. --Eupator 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And this looks like stalking. Baristarim 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I've had about enough of your stalking, your insinuations, allegations and accusations. You will not tell me which articles I can edit and which votes I can participate in. If you continue engaging in this kind of disruptive behaviour, you will leave me with no choice but to take the matter to the next level. Consider this a warning. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your reply. Sorry that you feel that way, I wasn't stalking you - I have many articles on my watchlist. In any case, my second post was to Eupator, not you. You have to admit that there was no way that he could have replied to me in your talk page three minutes after my post, right? Anyways, just wanted to say something about the Fire article. Your addition is fine, I never edited that article, so I don't know how it got to that point. The article needs to be rewritten in any case, it is a complete wreck from whatever way you look at it :) Baristarim 09:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's all over the shop, really. On the other hand, some of the material posted by the new guy could be worth looking at. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

macedonian

Kékrōps, sorry, I broke that flow of that discussion, but I never was referring to anything except Bulgaromacedonian. I set up that section, with that name, because that term isn't English. Your conversation with Francis wandered. In the end, I think we agree which term has entered English, and which has not. Jd2718 16:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you set up a section entitled Bulgaroskopian, which I explained was pejorative while Slavomacedonian was not. In any case, we do agree that the latter has entered the language. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Languages of the European Union

Thanks for your edit, it improved it quite well... Thanks again 202.63.40.179 08:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries, mate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Greek elections

I just saw your last changes in the template. Something is going wrong with the template after your change; there is a redundant "Greek elections}}" πλάγια της template (τουλάχιστο στο Mozilla). I don't know what is that exactly, but it needs fixing. And what is this story with the flag? Δεν την έπιασα! Ευχαριστώ!--Yannismarou 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Α! Το έφτιαξες βλέπω! ΟΚ!--Yannismarou 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Πρώτον, μία σημαία φτάνει και περισσεύει, και δεύτερον, είναι αναχρονιστικό να εμφανίζεται πάνω από τις εκλογές της Γερουσίας της δεκαετίας του 20 και του 30 η σημαία της θαλάσσης που καθιερώθηκε επίσημα ως σημαία του κράτους μόλις το 1978. Το ίδιο ισχύει και για τα δημοψηφίσματα, το τελευταίο από τα οποία διεξήχθη το 1974. Αυτή είναι η κατάλληλη για τις δύο αυτές περιπτώσεις, αλλά είναι μάλλον περιττή. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK! Απλά δεν ήξερα ότι η σημερινή μας σημαία καθιερώθηκε επίσημα ως τέτοια το 1978. Ευχαριστώ και για την ιστορική διαφώτιση και για την ανάλογη τροποποίηση της template. Καλημέρα!--Yannismarou 08:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Frisian language

According to Mercator-legislation page on frisian, a specialised study center, it seems that the second time you were right. It is not the other official language of the Netherlands at the national level. --Michkalas 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vergina Sun

You removed a paragraph from Vergina Sun with the following explanation: "Peter Hill is a Slavicist with no particular knowledge of ancient Greece or its symbols." That's your unsubstantiated personal opinion (which Wikipedia's no original research policy disallows). Also, deleting a point of view which you don't like isn't permitted by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please bear in mind that we need to fairly represent both the Greek and the Slavic points of view if we're to meet the requirements of the NPOV policy. -- ChrisO 11:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include the opinion that the Vergina Sun is not a Greek symbol, at least cite an expert on classical antiquity who would be qualified to make that judgment. A Slavicist with extensive personal ties to the FYROM and explicitly anti-Greek partisan loyalties cannot be considered a credible source. His article was published in Melbourne's Age at the height of the conflict in 1994, provoking a furious reaction from the local Greek community and prompting the newspaper to distance itself from his views. Moreover, the Slavic point of view is already well represented; Peter Hill's views are just that, his own "unsubstantiated personal opinion", and bear no more weight than yours or mine, quite frankly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've missed the point I was making. Hill's view (which I don't fully agree with personally, btw) makes an important point on the Slavic side of the argument. He's a published academic, which neither of us are, so he qualifies as a reliable source, which neither of us do. His argument is published in a major newspaper, which makes it verifiable, which our own viewpoints aren't. I know you don't like the argument he makes, but please don't try to remove it because of your personal views on the matter. -- ChrisO 11:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my request that you cite an expert on ancient Greece who claims that it is not a Greek symbol. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the experts (or at least the ones I've read) do claim that it's a Greek symbol. But as you know, the dispute is really about politics, not archaeology, and Hill's point is essentially a political one. I think your current wording is fine, btw - thanks for being constructive about this question! -- ChrisO 12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind including opposing points of view at all, as long as they are placed in their right context. Hill's views are not those of a neutral outsider - he is rather vehemently pro-Slav and even married to one if my memory serves me correctly. Not that that matters of course, so long as people know where his loyalties lie. I was in Melbourne when that article was published and have fond memories of the Greek reaction and the Age's subsequent attempt at damage control. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine that the local Greek community was not very pleased... I agree, it's worth noting where his loyalties (or perhaps biases) lie, though of course we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that both sides are naturally biased towards their own POV. -- ChrisO 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His view is marginal and that alone qualifies as a justification for the latest addition of Kekrops ("and actively promoted their cause"). NikoSilver 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Marginal indeed. The Greeks "appropriated" a symbol found on their territory (and not just in Macedonia), not the Slavs who have no connection, historical or geographical, to it whatsoever. The mind boggles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea that anything other than territoriality within internationally recognised borders can determine contemporary ownership of such archaeological treasures baffles me. The Greeks have "appropriated" the Sun of Vergina as much as the Egyptians have appropriated the Pyramids, or the Italians the Colosseum. Except for the minor detail that the Greeks of today still speak the language of their supposedly unrelated ancient counterparts, unfortunately for Professor Hill. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You're whole arguement is flawed. Which Greek scholar would be objectively non-biased. They would lose their funding and be sacked ASAP Hxseek 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous and racist comment. Go away. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Minorities in Greece:

Your recent edit to Minorities in Greece (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. // VoABot II 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hummh, this is indeed pretty weird. :-) I guess the article is on the bot's watchlist because of Kaltsef - but it must have a rather strange definition of what a "new user" is. If it only knew... Anyway, I'm going to look into it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Να 'σαι καλά, ρε Μέλλοντα. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my only guess is that its code chokes on your diacritics when trying to access your edit count. Something similar seems to be happening with the Interiot Tool edit counter, which doesn't like non-ascii names either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been a repeat so far, though. My latest edits remain intact. By the way, how is it that a genuinely new user like User:Phormion can slip through the cracks? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Right - Phormion demonstrates that it can't really be a matter of edit count, but probably of age of first edit (he's about as old as you). As I said, my guess is the bot couldn't correctly access your history data because of some bug with converting the diacritics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, IE7 (or Yahoo plugin for Internet Explorer 6), that comes with tabs, like FireFox, has the same problems. When you press the middle button (wheel) on your name (or when you right-click/select open-in-new-tab), you're supposed to have your userpage in a new tab. Instead of that, you get to edit the new (red) userpage of a "User:Kékrōps". The same happens to all accented pages. So, I suggest you get rid of the accents in your name. NikoSilver 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Thessaloniki

The lead, as you have rewritten it, is far better (actually, the entire lead now, all (5?) paragraphs works quite nicely). Your comments and behavior on the talk page how ever have been uncivil, and you have been assuming bad faith. You may want to review your talk page edits from the last 2 days, and consider some reversion, as I am taking a little time to decide whether to bring this to the notice board. Jd2718 17:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that I had the desire to "bury" the other languages, whether literally or figuratively, is the epitome of bad faith. My decision to strike your offensive comment was based on WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments. As you have ignored my repeated requests for a retraction, I should be the one taking this to the noticeboard, quite frankly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Είπε ο γάιδαρος τον πετεινό: Κεφάλα!" NikoSilver 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kékrōps, please don't make incivil comments again (such as the ones here). They are not helpful at all, and as you are a prolific editor, I expect better from you. Khoikhoi 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware I had to live up to your expectations. In any case, if you don't reprimand him for accusing me of wanting to "bury" other languages, you're really in no position to expect anything from me. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: what I just gave you was a warning. If you don't comply to it, you will be blocked. Khoikhoi 06:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ba ba da, bi ba da... ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

About Northern Cyprus

It's kind of standartisation of all the articles concerning unrecognised countries. The accepted words are 'de-facto independent republic within de-jure borders of XXX'. If you don't agree please provide some proof Northern Cyprus is NOT independent actually. Good luck! Alaexis 14:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, just check your e-mail.--Domitius 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lo he entendido bien la primera vez, no te preocupes chaval. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Can I say it in Albanian? Te kam derguar nje e-mail.--Domitius 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you cannot. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A potential compromise

Hello. With regard to a paragraph in the TRNC article that reads;

Greek Cypriots believed the amendments necessary due to an abuse of those safeguards by Turkish Cypriots, leading to an unworkable government.[3]

I think with a small edit where 'due to an abuse of those safeguards' is changed to 'due to what they saw as abuses of those safeguards' or perhaps 'due to their perceived abuses of those safeguards' then that paragraph would be as neutral as we are going to get. If those abuses can be specified by a neutral source then fair enough but the source in question doesnt go into specifics and neither could it be considered neutral. I'm reaching out to you to see if compromise could be reached as in the cold light of day that phrase isnt neutral. Adam777 00:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take that up with Garnet; he was the one behind the current wording.[3] I wouldn't oppose your suggestion as long as we insert a similar proviso vis-à-vis the "independence" of the "TRNC" or revert to the original wording of "de facto state" of which you were an erstwhile supporter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think any change to 'abuses' needs a concensus across both sides of the debate to avoid an edit war. On the subkject of 'de-fato- state...can you remind me what the wording was, the title has changed so many times I've lost track of both its wording and the arguments behind the changes. Adam777 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding, based on a couple of your own posts, was that the result of the mediation was "de facto state". It has now been changed to "de facto independent republic", which would be fine if it weren't for the very tenuous nature of its "independence". Independent of Cypriot rule, surely, but de facto wholly dependent on Turkey, by the admission of everyone but the Turks themselves, who for understandable political reasons tout the "TRNC" as a rival to the Republic of Cyprus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote my reply to you before I looked at the article and I can see the most recent mayhem. I personally have no issue with the inclusion or omission of the word 'independent' and the mediation did agree on 'de-facto state' (because at the time people were arguing that the TRNC wasn't a 'state' because it wasn't legal) which was a whole other kettle of fish. I wonder what the definition of independence is when it refers to a nation. Perhaps that term can only really be applied to a sovereign state, which the TRNC. isnt. I mean if the TRNC isnt a legal entity in the eyes of the UN then how can it be an independent nation? Adam777 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Adam's constructive comment above. ("well, what would NikoSilver say, it matches his strong POV doesn't it?") :-) NikoSilver 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. There's really no room for excesses here. The fact that there is a de facto breakaway state in the north of Cyprus is an indisputable statement of fact; whether there should or shouldn't be is another matter entirely. The Republic of Cyprus has accepted that any future settlement will provide for a bizonal federation, so a Turkish Cypriot state will survive in one form or another even after a solution. On the other hand, claiming that it is "independent" is stretching it a bit too far towards the official line of Talat and the Turkish foreign ministry. Ordinary Turks and Turkish Cypriots would probably agree that it is entirely dependent on Turkey for its existence. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

TRNCing

Just a heads up to not get too carried away :) - I think that you hit four reverts. I am cool with it, but better to avoid the heat all the same. Cheers! Baristarim 10:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi. I wanted to invite you to join the cooperation board. I know that you have criticized it in the past, nevertheless I just would like to tell you that the main raison d'etre of the project is to at least show that a willingness to cooperate exists. The problem is that on certain subjects people's views (or their "truths") are so different that there still is a long way to go before we can wade through all of them and clarify the objective information. I try to do my best to diffuse disputes or at least always remind myself to always keep it cooler if I am involved - but I know that I am not perfect. I consider that you are a reasonable and world-wise editor, so I think that your participation would be a plus for the board - I would really appreciate it. Cheers! Baristarim 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Teşekkürler, but what has the board actually achieved? After a few posts early on, it seems largely defunct nowadays. I'm always willing to cooperate, board or no board, but I sometimes get the impression that "cooperation" is just code for capitulation to the views and wishes of the other side. That said, you're not the only one who has asked me to join; the Greeks have also encouraged me, politely but firmly, to do so, but I still see it as little more than a diplomatic beauty pageant. Kinda like Papandreou's zeibekiko for Cem back in the 90s. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Καλώς τον! Although you know became an official member of the project, I was thinking that you were ther from ever! I hope you'll enjoy contributing.--Yannismarou 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Καλώς σας βρήκα! I was never invited! :P ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake!--Yannismarou 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Greece! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Greece.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our sidebar points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The Announcements and Open tasks section is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPGreeceOpenTasks}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Interested in working on a more complete article? The peer review department of the project would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of Greek history, geography, culture etc. ? There is already one task force, and you could initiate the creation of more focusing on specific topics or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Gray Wolf

I think I made this explanation before; Gray Wolf is to Turks what Bald Eagle is to Americans. I don't think its Wikipedic to add into the article our interpretations of why TMT put the Wolf on its logo. Also suggesting a connection with Grey Wolves is apperantly misleading since TMT was found 11 years earlier and by the time Grey Wolves gained power TMT had already dissolved. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll agree however that they both had their origins in a particular tradition of Turkish Cypriot nationalism; don't forget where Alparslan Türkeş came from. The grey wolf symbol had a particular resonance for Turkish nationalists even before the establishment of the Grey Wolves per se. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, will agree that Grey Wolf is to Turks what bald Eagle is to Americans - it is not the others fault that a particular ideological group appropriated for themselves.. Anyways, Kekrops, is this edit ok [4]? - I don't know the subject.. Baristarim 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not. The Greeks fighting in Macedonia weren't fighting the Macedonians; they were the Macedonians. As for the claim that the grey wolf is to Turkey what the bald eagle is to the USA, a reliable source would be much appreciated. I don't think the two are quite comparable; the eagle appears on the Great Seal of the United States, while the wolf has no such official sanction in Turkey. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't pass for a left-leaning liberal if you go around wearing a grey wolf T-shirt, n'est-ce pas? That is what I meant when I said it had a particular political resonance. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as for that edit I had to ask since I see a lot of edits happening in those pages but I am constantnly confused among Bulgarians, Slavs and Macedonians. I had an idea that it was a bit fishy so I tried to get the look of someone who knew the subject better. This Macedonia name thing is really confusing, I will definitely give you guys that.. As for the GW.. Yeah, I suppose - these days it has become associated with a particular ideology. If 80 years ago the TR govt had made it an official thing, like "the official animal" (ex Bald eagle - US, the hen - France), that would have stopped it from being appropriated in that manner. Baristarim 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Entertain me, Turk

WP:NPA--Doktor Gonzo 08:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, apperantly you are a frequent reader of my userpage, it is flattering, thank you.--Doktor Gonzo 09:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not, it's thoroughly amusing. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ilinden-Preobrazhen uprising

You are right - it was called Ilinden-Preobrazhen uprising with the 'Preobrazhen' part refering to the uprising of Bulgarians in Eastern Trakia, around Luleburgaz and Edirne. Makedonists prefer to forget the 'Preobrazhen' part because if they write the name in full it will become clear that this is Bulgarian uprising aiming for liberation of all Bulgarians that were not liberated during the Russo-Turkish war 1877-78. This is why that anonymous makedonist keeps deleting the respective part in the History of Bulgaria article. --Lantonov 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision 2007

Eurovision 2007

Let's be very practical and spread the message widely

vote for west europe to save the contest

VOTES ONLY FOR SPAIN- FRANCE- SWEDEN- FINLAND- IRELAND- UNITED KINGDOM- GERMANY-

I'm not voting for my Favorite Moldova, Ukarine & Georgia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Littledaniel_93" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littledaniel 93 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Cute. I'm rooting for Serbia, personally. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

slavic toponymes in Greece

Help needed in this article(Slavic toponymes in Greece)! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places . Very strange article that doesn’t uses any sources. Please check the talk page, Plese advise and help. Regards (Seleukosa 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)) (Seleukosa 12:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Project European Union

Hello ΚΕΚΡΩΨ/Archive 1, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[WP:MOSMAC]

Φίλε Κέκρωψ, Even though I am sympathetic to your edits to this MOS, I felt that I had to revert them. Τhere are a number of things in the MOS that are unfavorable to Greeks, but the other side feels the same about other points. Now that a balanced policy has been created by mutual agreement, care needs to be taken when making changes. I propose that you repost your suggestion in the Talk page for discussion. Φιλικά, sys < in 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring at Fall of Tripolitsa OR Tripolitsa Massacre

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. I have therefore blocked you for a period of 48h. Please discuss your issues and look for a consensus for you unilateral page moves once you are back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop Vandalism in Albania's page!

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Albania, you will be blocked from editing. Do not erase the Demographic article.If you wish to edit the minorities please use the main article of Demographics "Thank you"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taulant23 (talk • contribs)

Anyone can see for themselves who is really vandalising the article. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I am warnig you, using different accounts and editing Albania's page, Wikipedia it's a good place to be.Please do not trash it. Taulant23

I have a good mind to report you for WP:PA, given your racist diatribes against non-Albanians editing Albania and now your baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. You have already violated WP:3RR several times over. Don't push your luck. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Albania. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please take this disagreement to the article's talk page - edit warring doesn't won't accomplish anything useful. Versageek 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc for Human rights of Kurds in Turkey

I've started an rfc, feel free to add your comment on the talk page. --A.Garnet 09:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Kapnisma

Geia sou file, enas akatanomastos epimenei se geloia edits edw, rikse se parakalw mia matia. Kapnisma ? 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help

Ekeinos o Taulant me exei pragmatika tsanthsei me tis malakies tou peri Pelasgon, Dwdwdnis, klp. Efxaristw gia thn bohtheia. Monon etsi tha ton valoume sthn thesh toy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talk • contribs)

No problem. Μην ξεχνάς να βάζεις υπογραφή.·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Great Fire of Smyrna. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Kudret abi 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Great Fire of Smyrna. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Kudret abi 05:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Communicaiton

Hi. I'm very new in Wikipedia. I would like to communicate you about the Tripolis Museum, you said you have been to. My mother's ancestor nearly escape the etnical cleaning in Morea in 1821. Therefore I'm deeply interested in it. What can I find there? What is to see?Birisi 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

demogra[hic history of macedonia

Hi. About the above article, i noticed your two objections raised in the slavic, avar .. section. I agree with what you say, and certainly was not trying to push the point that macedonia was completely slavicised. I hope the little adjustments reflect this Hxseek 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Greece

Kekrops: I saw you reverted the orthography of Βασίλειον της Έλλάδος Vasileion tis Ellados to Βασίλειον τῆς Ἑλλάδος Vasileion tes Ellados. I am not sure if the characters you have used appear for other users, but I have looked at this on two different computers and I get square blocks in place of letters. I expect that you are using a polytonic orthography, which would be synchronal, but might be hard for everyone to see. The other thing is your use of tes for της. I am not sure what system of transliteration you are using, but in modern Greek tes sounds like ταις or τες, not της. Regards, Argos'Dad 06:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All newer operating systems/browsers support polytonic script, but I've added Template:Polytonic for your benefit. Let me know if it comes up for you now. Regarding your second point, I have changed the transliteration to tīs as per the ISO 843 standard. Το tes είναι όντως αναχρονιστικό εδώ, αφού δεν αναφερόμαστε στην αρχαία γλώσσα αλλά στην καθαρεύουσα, η οποία αν και αρχαΐζουσα δεν παύει να αποτελεί μορφή της νεοελληνικής. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I had an older browser :) Thank you for using the polytonic template. Argos'Dad 15:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Middlesex, the novel

Thanks for your remark to my query on the Talk page. The field is, of course, wide open for some author with an other-than-Greek surname to write a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel from a different standpoint. I only doubted one point re: the credence of evacuation scene: the ease with which the protagonist acquired French protection for himself and putative relatives to emigrate. Are we to understand that the French officials were sympathetic and/or lax? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 15:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

FYROM accession move

My apologies, I misread the debate and thought Husond's statement at top was the result, not the proposal. Thanks for fixing my mistake! --Hemlock Martinis 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Geography textbook and child encyclopedia

Hello Kékrōps. see my last revision (it is 100% of your version with added private published in front of the encyclopedia). I just added state published for the geography textbook. Τι νομιζεις? Τωρα καλα ειναι? Για σου. Revizionist 20:42, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ για το καλωσόρισμα, αλλά πράγματι σκοπεύω να ψιλοαραιώσω αυτή τη φορά. Έχουν καταντήσει τόσο αστείοι πια! Τα λέμε, NikoSilver 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Τῷ ὄντι. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Germanos karavagelis =

To arthro gia ton Germano Karavageli dexete sinexos epitheseis! Pos mporoume na to prostatepsoume???? Seleukosa 09:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sfages stin Epanastasi

Signomi, alla mporeis na koitaxies to artho Massacres during the Greek Revolution sto savvatokyriako? Eho kani pebert tpia fores kai den 8elw na me mplokarisoun. AlexiusComnenus 15:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Civility at Thessaloniki in edit summary

You have plainly violated WP:Civility with this edit summary Its official name is plain Macedonia, not "the Greek Region of Macedonia". It also happens to be the capital of any definition of Macedonia, which is why it it is claimed by Skopjan nationalists. Using racial, ethnic or religious slurs is a more serious variety of incivility.

The usual course, to revert your own comment, is unavailable, as you've placed it in an edit summary. I suggest that this is sufficiently serious that you place an apology on the article's talk page. Jd2718 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. Have a read of United Macedonia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Greetings!

Please refer to the above page for a suggestion on getting this article back on track.

Cordially, Drieux 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kalimera Kekrops

Macedon s story was linked through out its history with the argead dynasty till alexander the great so the left arrow has a meaning with the sense that it redirects to the argeades. Italiotis 07:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrysostomos of Smyrna

To arthro gia ton Chrysostomo Smyrnis eixe kakopoiithi agria apo tous tourkous xristes!!! Prospathisa na to diorthoso alla pithana na xreiastei voithia!!! me ektimisi Seleukosa 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kekrops

I ve noticed the latest change you made on GDP per capita for Greece. Maybe you should also update the GDP per capita ranking for 2007 data so that the ranking for each country corresponds to the article GDP per capita list?? Because for Greece you put no 18th and on the list its ranked 19th and that creates a contradiction. Cheers88.218.161.117 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, but that has been the case for as long as I can remember. Individual country infoboxes tend to have more up-to-date information than the main article, unfortunately. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh...

No problem about the "many". :-) Hadn't even seen it was removed or re-added. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ναι, καλά τώρα. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Thank you for keeping an objective, open mind re: naming dispute, and not just mass reverting my edits. I thought your touch-ups were good, factual and fair Hxseek 03:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your're right Greek is probably the closest extant language to ancient Macedonian; unless Albanians somehow claim it ! :) Hxseek 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops

i know you noticed it, but just not to give you the chance to run away from the discussion as it now has become a tradition for you Kekrops.. See that section with the name Kekrop that i opened in the Pontic Greek Genocide article..As i said that you simple provoke me to open an article which i think should have existed any way..You may be suprised but there many historians who uses the word genocide, ethnic cleanesing about what the Greek army had done there..--laertes d 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid Tags

Dont remove valid tags. concentrate on fixing the problems that the tags highlight.Dzole 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is your use of the tags to push a POV agenda. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist!

You sir are a racist!!! You offensive terms have crossed the line. I demand that you retract your statements and stop harrasing me!!! You are also pushing your POV agenda on many pages!

"I'm sorry, but Skopjan nationalist websites hardly constitute reliable sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC) " Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28terminology%29—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstatik (talk • contribs)

Piss off. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I've taken the whole set of Macedonia-related edit warring to the Arbitration committee. You are named as a party to the case. Please see WP:RFAR#Macedonia. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you contribute on the workshop, please use a Latin signature so it is easier to identify your username. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The above arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be found here. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on Balkans-related articles if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

you edits

Hi, do you have a source for the city of Skopje not being in the Macedonian Empire? thanks, Fatmanonthehorse 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just take a look at the map cited in the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By looking at the map, I would say Skopje is right at the border (hence the ancient Greek name "watch tower"), if not at least the southern districts of modern Skopje were in the empire. Fatmanonthehorse 17:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Skopje belonged to Dardania, actually. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That part of Skopje belonging to Dardania was added a couple days ago, and it has no source. Fatmanonthehorse 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this map [5] from A History of the Ancient World by George Willis Botsford Ph.D., published by The MacMillan Company in 1913, it certainly covered Skopje and as north as the Danube as well. Fatmanonthehorse 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, even that map cited above places Skopje in the conquered area outside Macedonia, clearly called "Thrace". Other such conquered parts on the map are e.g. Egypt and Persia. Neither of the two respective modern states claim their modern capitals were ...within Macedonia. Of course, all of them were part of the Hellenistic world that followed. NikoSilver 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on NikoSilver's talk page

here appears to me directed to me personally. I believe it is out of line. Please revert yourself. Jd2718 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You posted your opinion, and I posted mine. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vlachs again

Why are you removing information about the self identification of Vlachs in the Republic like this [6] (line 272/269)? Don't say it's not relevant because it's as relevant as the Slavophones in Greece identifying as Greeks. And where is the 1994 census data? I'm not saying that I don't believe there were 250,000 but it needs a source. Although if there were 250,000 in 1994, and under 10,000 in 2002 (verified), shouldn't there be over 240,000 people identifying as Greek? Unless they don't think they are/were Greek. There are only a few hundred Greeks in the republic and 962 citizens of the Republic in Greece. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit as a whole, which contained a lot of POV crap. You're welcome to re-add the source re the < 10,000 Vlachs in 2002. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK. It's annoying when people add some sourced material and then add POV. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek people Template: Yeah, but they're still not a subgroup of Greeks. Unless all of them identify as Greeks then it doesn't count. The Megelenites across the border and the Aromanians in the diaspora do not identify as Greeks because they're not. There is more evidence to put them as a subgroup of Romanians than Greeks. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They are a subgroup of Greeks in Greece, where the majority of them live. The criterion that all of them have to identify as Greeks simply isn't valid. These templates are not mutually exclusive, and no one is stopping you from including the Aromanians as a subset of another ethnic group. Actually, you don't have to. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not a subgroup of any ethnic group. That is my point. Everyone is a subgroup of Greeks in Greece. Your criterion isn't valid either. "Aromanian" does not equate to "Arvanite". Arvanite is a specific term referring to the Albanians that have Greek identity. Aromanian refers to all the people who speak the Aromanian language (and then some) regardless of what they regard themselves. If someone says "I am an Arvanite" then you can say "You are Greek". If someone says "I am an Aromanian" you cannot necessarily say "You are Greek". The Aromanians are a people who live south of the Danube. They identify either as plain Vlachs or as a member of whichever nation they live in. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"They are not a subgroup of any ethnic group." That's just your opinion. I know many Greek Vlachs who would strongly disagree. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They are an ethnic group by themselves that identifies as whatever they want depending on where they are. It doesn't change that they are Aromanians. I know many Vlachs that don't live in Greece who would be greatly offended if someone said they were are a subset of Greeks. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Greek Vlachs would be greatly offended if you told them they weren't. Or that they should be included in Template:Romanians. Greeks are also greatly offended by the misuse of the name Macedonia, but as I've been told time and again, offence or lack thereof is not a criterion on Wikipedia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said that they should be included in Romanians as they are not. But they are more Romanian than they are Greek. "Misuse" of the name Macedonia is just your opinion. What should we call the ones who want to call themselves Macedonians and nothing else? Apparently Skopians. You call yourself Greek - so people call you Greek, but then you call yourself Macedonian, so then people have to call you Macedonian and disambiguate the others. Call yourself Blue - then go argue that the Blue Man Group is offending you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.89.28 (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV solution

I seem to be getting along with kekrops OK so far in the Bryges article and he did pick up a serious error in a published book. As I read through here I see that a lot of the controversy is being generated by ethnic or national feelings. I dare say, the Balkans have always been a very emotional topic. The mountains provide a certain degree of protection in which remnants or bastions of ethnic groups can survive and they always feel like a beleaguered minority that has to assert their identity more vigorously. I think the Wikipedia NPOV policy rises above all that. Because we are contesting here on the Internet rather than in the field we can afford to take a "friendly enemy" type of approach. Regardless of what you may personally think, in these articles you become non-committal. This is a tough task to accomplish but who said the use of the intellect was anything easy! So what I would suggest is a real effort to stick to NPOV using bland statements and a non-committal matter-of-fact tone. Pour oil upon troubled waters. Put off going to war until tomorrow; meanwhile, you don't have to say all those nasty things today.Dave (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Was that post intended for someone else or do you habitually address others in the third person? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sumerian

Hoi. Thank you for having an eye on this. --Thogo (Talk) 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnically derogatory terms

Please see my comments at WP:AN/I#ΚέκρωΨ Need to be Banned!. In the interests of promoting a better editing environment on the Macedonia-related articles, I plan to take a tougher line this year on civility. Ethnically derogatory terms such as "Skopjans" are not acceptable and their use is specifically prohibited per Wikipedia:Civility. I request that you cease using such terms, as they cause unnecessary tension and offence. This will be enforced, so please take heed of this advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See my answer on the noticeboard. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

1. According to Wikipedia, The turkish republic of northern Cyprus is a sovereign state - as you can see in the List of sovereign states. 2. The name of article about Macedonia in Wikpidia - is not FYR Macedonia. Eliko (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is according to WP:MOSMAC in certain contexts. The IMF is one such international organisation that uses FYROM rather than "Macedonia". As for the "TRNC", it is only on that list under "States claiming sovereignty". What about Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Palestine? Why are they not listed? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcos Baghdatis

Why do you remove my edits on the page for Marcos Baghdatis where I claim that he is racist and provide video evidence of him attending a BBQ proving my claims to be true? I have received warnings such as "The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Marcos Baghdatis, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." However I beleive the youtube link as proof and this should be a suitable enough reference. I thought that this piece of information would be interesting to have in the Trivia section of his wiki site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsehsteve (talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they are defamatory. A chant about ending the Turkish occupation of his homeland is patriotic, not racist. Grow up. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

According to you it's patriotic, I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say you are Greek and by the sound of many comments on your talk page you are also "Patriotic". Everybody here who I've shown the video to, from many different backgrounds, all believe it to be racist. You will probably just remove my posts from your talk section as well but I don't care. Also is your name John by any chance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsehsteve (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

None of your business. Now piss off. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

TRNC

Hello. I understand well your position; However:

The term "cyprus" in CIA report appears twice (one is for the real Cyprus, the socond being for the northern territory), and is undoubtedly a simple mistake.

The second table in "List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita" - is intended to reflect CIA report, while the term used by CIA is rather "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus(TRNC)" - as you can see here.

No difference between Taiwan and TRNC: Both countries are indicated (in Wikipedia) as claiming sovereignty, but are not recognized by all countries: Taiwan is recognized by 27 countries (out of 192 UN members), while TRNC is recognized by Turkey only. Therefore, since Taiwan is indicated in the second table as a state (because it claims sovereignty and is recognized by "some" countries), so TRNC should be indicated in the second table as a state (because it claims sovereignty and is recognized by "some" countries - i.e: Turkey).

I hope you understand my position.

Eliko (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that Taiwan has its own entry, while the "TRNC" doesn't. Numbering it gives the false impression that the CIA recognises it as a separate entity, when in fact it treats it under the entry for Cyprus. I believe my version is a fair compromise, where the data are preserved but the territory is not numbered. Regardless of the name used by the CIA, which in fact uses "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" only in scare quotes, Wikipedia has its own naming conventions. And on Wikipedia, the article is located at Northern Cyprus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ROU v BUL

Romania is much richer than Bulgaria. We are both countries now in EU but Romania is much richer. Romanians have a better standard of living and they are richer. That's why they can afford to spend their money all over the world including Bulgaria. Anton Tudor (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Da, da. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So you agree, how nice you even speak Romanian Anton Tudor (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the same in Bulgarian and all other Slavic languages, isn't it? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly yeah..Anton Tudor (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always been curious, actually. Why did Roumanian adopt the Slavic da when most other Romance languages have a variation of sí? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you as greek should know so far. Second, it's not ROU and of course not "Roumanian". Third, you have in your own greek turkish words. It's about the religion here. In the church, Romanians belonged to Greek Orthodoxy and was imposed with slavonic language, so that's why "Da" but in some regions one can say "e" which is the same as in Portuguese. Tell me if you need other explanations in details. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because up to 19th century the official documents of Wallachia were written in Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and also the Bulgarians had ruled Wallachia for centuries and there were a lot of Slavs in what is now Romania. --Gligan (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But it is ROU; it was previously ROM. As for Greek having Turkish loanwords, so does Roumanian, but "yes" is one of the most basic words in a language. "...belonged to Greek Orthodoxy"; but da is Slavic, not Greek. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At least we get rid of old-fashion, borring slavics and returned to the true roots. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kekrops, it's Romanian and not Roumanian, do you get it? Anton Tudor (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the older English spelling, which is retained in Greek, French and other languages. Romanía in Greek historically refers to the Byzantine Empire, of which modern-day Romania was only a small part. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Prefer what you want but when you speak it, pretend to be polite otherwise you'll get an irony for Greece also. Not from me, BTW, because I like Greece but perhaps from BG who are very friendly with you..Anton Tudor (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't make a difference, actually, because both Romania and Roumania are pronounced identically in English, i.e. with a schwa. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I... give it a break will you?Anton Tudor (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it Ţeara Rumânească originally? As for your cross-Danube war with the Bulgarians, I have very good friends from both countries, so I'm staying well away from this one. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't pronounced the same in English. "Romania" is pronounced like "Roe-mania" and "Roumania" is pronounced like "Rue-mania". BalkanFever 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Roe rhymes with "go" and "dough", whereas Rue rhymes with "who" and "blue". BalkanFever 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the accent, I suppose. Most BBC newsreaders say ɹə'meɪnjə or something very close to it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anton, hello from me too. Is there some special reason why "Roumania" is not polite? BTW in Greek language your country is called "Ρουμανία" (Roumanía), and the people are called "Ρουμάνοι" (Roumáni). And Kekrops is right: When Greeks say "Ρωμανία" (Romanía) they generally mean the Byzantine Empire. See the featured Names of the Greeks#Romans (Ρωμαίοι) and Romioi (Ρωμιοί). Anyway, there's no intent of sounding insulting with "Roumania", but why would it be? NikoSilver 10:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at Talk:Romanians, Niko. There is a (semi-)relevant discussion about usage of anything other than "Romanians". BalkanFever 11:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But there's no mention of why it may be insulting. Also, I can't figure it out, because we Greeks accept to be called various completely irrelevant names ("Greek", "Yunan", "Rum" etc) from the current self-identifying one ("Hellenes"). But I have noticed that [almost] the longer the history of a people, the more names they have! See e.g. Jews (Hebrews, Ivrit etc) or Germans (Deutch, Tedeschi, Allemagni etc) or French (Gaulles) etc etc. Maybe Anton could explain why (and if) "Roumania/n" can sound insulting? NikoSilver 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Niko, first Romanians feel and act like latins. No slavic, no barbarims and only latin, culture, civilization of Rome. If you ask Romanians have never had good opinions about slavic people. Ask them for yourself. And as a matter of pride in their name has to be the one of the Romans, Roma (the capital..), that's why Romanians say in Romanian language: România with Ro and not with Rou or Ru..:( it's odd and strange to hear 'Ru'. Anton Tudor (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To spice it up a little bit... Here in Sofia that I am now, Bulgarians tell me that occasionally they refer to us as "Byzantíne" in a pejorative way (i.e. something like cunning, diplomatic, twisting etc). The Greeks here, however, ironically accept the appellation with pride! (for some weird reason I do too btw!) NikoSilver 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're now in Sofia ask them about their low wages. All the Bulgarians dream to have Romanian standard of living. Since now Bulgaria is so cheap for Romanians a lot of them go shopping in Ruse. They also made some videos that can be seen in Youtube.com. Bulgaria for a Romanian looks 2 times oldish and backward: 1) because of the writting system, nobody can understand that oldish way of writting with letters hard to spell 2) there's nothing to attract you there, just backward poor "state" with lots of holes in the streets and corrupted policemens. 3) their language that sounds like Russian with ta-ta-ta-ta rythm, like a tractor ta-ta-ta-tata, very unmelodious and very annoying. 4) dirty everywhere, it stinks and smells bad. These people (with a lot of gypsy-bulgars) haven't discovered yet the soap and shampoo..or maybe it's too expensive. Bulgarian women also don't wash..:(( Anton Tudor (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus... I hope you are already banned while I'm reading this. If not, you should definitely be reported. NikoSilver 19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This guy is Bonaparte.--   Avg    20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. blocked him for three days already. We'll have to wait for the Checkuser, I guess. BalkanFever 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania is a neologism. Untill the 19th century the Romanian people called themselves Wallachians.The modern Romanian people are descented from romanized Dacians and assimilated Slavs. In that sense they are indeed descentands of Romans and this explains the strong Slavic element in their language. However that also applied to France, Spain, Italy etc all the romance countries. Quote from Britannica:"The ethnogenesis of the Romanian people was probably completed by the 10th century. The first stage, the Romanization of the Geto-Dacians, had now been followed by the second, the assimilation of the Slavs by the Daco-Romans."

On another note Bulgaria is ranked 53rd for human development while Romania is 60th. Per capita GDP (PPP) is almost the same in both coutries at USD 9,000. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ I wish both countries well and am happy they are in the EU but what the previous user was saying viz Romania being more developed than Bulgaria is not true. Although pre-WWI Romania was a very developed country and Bucarest was called the Paris of the Balkans. Xenovatis (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Romanians never called themselves Wallachians (Valahi); it was a name used by foreigners. In fact Wallachia, which was only a small part of what is now Romania, was called in our tongue "Ţeara Rumânească" (later "Ţara Românească"). All the Wallachian groups used various words derived from romanus to refer to themselves: Români, Rumâni, Rumâri, Aromâni, Arumâni etc.Giuseppe86 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Countries bordering the European Union

Due to your edit-warring over this article (and related templates, I've noticed) per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia you are limited to 1 revert per page per day for 2 months. Further, you are required to discuss all reverts except reverts of obvious vandalism on the relevant talk page, and are prohibited from reverting all edits apart from obvious vandalism by using popups or any other automatic reversion tool. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert request

If you revert an edit, could you please make sure that you state the reason for reverting, as required by WP:REVERT#Explain reverts. To quote that page, "Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide

Yeia sou Kekrops. I wanted to suggest changing the title of the article to something like Greek or Hellenic Genocide. This is how it is recognised by IAGS and this wording would also allow inclusion of the events in Smyrna, Kydonies, Kappadocia and other places in the south. Also I looked for an article on Greek Genocide and there was no such a one. Alternatively, since the term Pontic Genocide has gained currency it could be defined as refrering to all Greeks. I would appreciate your opinions. Also I had removed the Neutrality disputed tag since it is now recognized by tha IAGS but it has been re-applied.Xenovatis (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the idea in principle, but the pessimist in me foresees an edit war of epic proportions ensuing. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Who would object? Any bibliographical reference to the Pontus events could be still used as it would concern a subset of the whole. Additionally I don't understand how people can still use the Neutrality tag when there is an IAGS recognition? Do you know any other users currently active that would like to contribute in this? Xenovatis (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You've probably realised by now that there are editors who want the article removed altogether, so it isn't hard to predict their reaction to an expansion of the article's scope. Ask User:NikoSilver what he thinks. It would be interesting to see how such a change would play out. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bring those up in the talkpage there. The counter-arguments would be that the minority of IAGS scholars criticize the recognition, that IAGS is not enough of a source given that other scholars allegedly dispute it, and that the events are more widely known as "Pontic G" rather than "Greek G", which is mostly due to the Greek state's idiocy of propagating a limiting adjective ("Pontic") in its recognition of the events. I'm fine as it is right now, and wouldn't try to change the title. I agree 100% with the NPOV tag removal though... NikoSilver 10:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a dispute regarding the NPOV tag's removal with user A.Garnet. I would like to ask you since you are here longer what the next step should be. There has been a large number of sources presented that label it as such and a recognition by IAGS. I also discussed this with user Rosewounds in his talk page. I believe him to be acting in good faith and I think he and Monsieur should be involved as third parties. Would you suggest arbitration? Vote? Rosewounds is opposed to a vote which he feels would be attended mostly by Greeks. Could this be resolved via mediation in order not to give the,unfair but still, impression of mobbing. Also if the removal is endorsed by some pro-Turkish posters in the talk page this would act as a detterant to future drive-by denialists. BTW Sts Cyril and Methodius is now merged. Thanks for voting.Xenovatis (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thessaloniki lead

I've reopened discussion of the lead, at talk:Thessaloniki#Reopen disambiguation discussion. We reached a compromise that seemed to satisfy all, and I am proposing we return to it. Jd2718 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

You seem to be determined to ignore that revert parole by Moreschi. Please see WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kekrops

		The Greek Barnstar of National Merit
		Hi, allow me to shake your hand and say thank you for your sincere efforts on Cyprus related articles. Regards, 3meandEr (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Kékrōps by 3meandEr (talk) on 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Να 'σαι καλά, πατριώτη. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pinpointing POVs. I will try to balance it. 3meandEr (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Per this thread, your revert parole is extended to cover another two months, starting from now. Furthermore, it is altered so that you are now limited to one revert per page per two days. Please remember that you must discuss every revert you make, excepting reversions of very obvious vandalism, on the relevant talk page. If you do not comply with these conditions you will be blocked.

Slow revert-warring is not acceptable either. Please try to discuss and garner consensus for your reverts before making them. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you and the other admins enforce WP:MOSMAC so I don't have to revert at all? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the consensus status of MOSMAC is far from solid enough that divergence from it could be treated as quasi-vandalism, so that it could be enforced by admin action or that its enforcement could be exempt from reversion rules. Certainly not in the cases our recent debates have been over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you kinda shot yourself in the foot with this one Fut.Perf., so why did you change the templates "per MOSMAC"? --   Avg    13:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was acting as a normal editor. Editorial action != admin action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when has the MOSMAC consensus regarding international organisations and cultural/athletic events been under dispute? One of the articles for which you so enthusiastically reported me to WP:AE is directly related to Eurovision, which is explicitly mentioned in the manual as an example of where FYROM is the prescribed name. Are you going to revert this or this to reflect that consensus, or will I be blocked again for doing it myself? Why have I never seen anyone blocked for reverting the FYROMisation of "Republic of Macedonia"? Unfortunately, it appears some admins have chosen to apply MOSMAC very selectively. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I was just trying to explain, MOSMAC is not an object of administrative enforcement at all. It's just a guideline for editors, and to the extent that it was just cooked up by a handful of editors locally, instead of reflecting prior widespread practice, its status even as a guideline is pretty shaky. If an editor chooses to ignore that consensus or compromise or whatever it is, that's still an issue to resolve between editors the normal way. Admins will hardly block for it, and they won't condone edit-warring over it. I, personally, as an editor, have very little interest in enforcing "Former Yugoslav" in these types of articles. I can live with articles having such names, but as I've said repeatedly, I find that part of the compromise lacks any rational justification, and the resulting titles are ugly. Where's your fabled sense of aesthetics again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I need neither your help nor your rather tasteless attempts at sarcasm. I just want to get on with the job. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

kosova not in border with central serbia

kosova patrioti is not in border with central serbia,like south of epirus with central greece , you understand what i mean F.Y:-)--Dodona (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What does F.Y. stand for? --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite curious as well.--   Avg    23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Epirus does border Central Greece. What's your point? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Macedonia

LOL. Just for fun, I'll ignore your sarcasm and take your comment seriously. I'm game if you are. In one week, if I remember, I'm going to change it back. Then one week later, you can. BalkanFever 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Unlike you, I haven't been involved in that kind of Balkan flipfucking and don't intend to, either. Enjoy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points

Hi and many thanks for your RfA support! I do have two questions for you. First: Greek coup d'état of 1843 - I hear this isn't considered a coup in Greece and would better be called "Revolution of 3rd September" or some such - what's your opinion? Second: a new user created this and this, but they seem to be in need of some cleanup. It's not quite my area, so maybe you could shed more light on the matter. Thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be called a revolution, as it led to the overthrowal of the established order. It is also the word (επανάσταση) used in the corresponding Greek article. As for the fresh macadamia nut articles, they should be speedily deleted as POV forks of other history articles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)