User talk:NikoSilver/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Eχεις δικιο

""Πίστεψέ με, οι περισσότεροι πλούσιοι που ξέρω ενδιαφέρονται πολύ περισσότερο απ΄όσο νομίζεις (αλλά αυτό είναι εκτός θέματος -μην το πάμε ταξικά). Εν πάσει περιπτώσει, να το διαγράψουμε δεν μπορούμε, άρα, "if you can't beat them, join them.""

Εχεις δικιο φιλε, αλλα αυτο το αρθρο δεν επρεπε ποτε να ειχε ξεκινησει, αλλα τετοια λαθη γινονται, τι να κανουμε! Ζητω συγνωμη αν σε προσβαλα με τον χαρακτηρισμο "κολωνακιωτες" ο οποιος εκ των υστερων ειναι λανθανσμενος. Απλα ηταν η πρωτη λεξη που μου ηρθε στο μυαλο για να χαρακτηρησω τους τοσους αδιαφορους. Θελει πολυ εντιτ αυτο το αρθρο για να μην προσβαλει κανεναν. Εμενα με εξοργισε και θα κανω οτι μπορω ωστε αν δεν γινεται να διαγραφει, τοτε να μετριαστει το υφος του :) --KaragouniS 16.57 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sig

I admit, I'm starting to get the "span" tags and I want £££££££££££££££ from you! (kidding) I know a few color codes now. I was inspired by your signature shop but I'll never be the new N!. Thanks for the inspiration that you didn't want to give to me! •Sean•gorter•^(Talk) 03:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've redesigned my userpage. Check it out! If you're computer is slow, you-know-what! •Sean•gorter•^(Talk) 05:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

el:Σαφρανβολου

Re your message in el:wiki, I'll do it with pleasure. Kindly tell me which syllable is stressed (accented) in Safranbolu to rename/move the page. I suspect it is in the end (Safranbolú)? Also, it's -bolou, not -volou, right? In that case I'll have to move it to Σαφρανμπολού (notice accent in the end and composite b-sound with mp).•NikoSilver• 20:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Niko:) b-sound is really interesting. I try to find it but couldn't. Does that sound's usage low on Greek language? What is the difference of ú. Is it some effect to lengthen u sound? --Ugur Basak 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Greek language doesn't specialise in what it calls barbaric (hard) sounds. (Actually, etymologically, Barbarian is someone who's tongue makes an incomprehensible to Greeks bar-bar sound!) We don't have B, we don't differentiate it from MP or MB or plain B sounds either. The same we don't have D, (we write NT) and do not differentiate it from NT or ND or plain D. Every Greek word can be pronounced either way, but usually it is the softest (mp and nt) sounds that prevail.

For stress, no it's not lengthened or somthing. I'll give you an example: The English word democrátic versus the French pronounciation democratíque. The first has a stress in A and the second in I. Greek language needs that accent where the stress is, to show the reader where to stress, because we generally use more vowels and less consonants. •NikoSilver• 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your brief explanation on Greek language. İyi geceler(καλή νύχτα [i can see stresses]). --Ugur Basak 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in like this, but I think think Safranbolu can be called Θεοδωρούπολη and Σαφράμπολη in Greek.--Tekleni 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The English version (Safranbolu) has the coordinates. Can you check it on an online map? •NikoSilver• 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Όχι. Πάω για ύπνο: iyi geceler :-) --Tekleni 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi my friend, User:Kober got it. User talk:Sosomk So, we call Greeks "wise people". :)Sosomk 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Niko, did you ever get an answer about the accentuation of Safranbolu? If I'm not mistaken, the accent is on the second syllable, IPA [saf'ranbolu]. In Turkish, most nouns have the accent on the last syllable, except for placenames. Moreover, compounds (like safran+bolu = full of saffron, I think) are accented on the first element. In Greek (unlike Turkish), the combination /nb/ automatically becomes /b/, hence Σαφράμπολη [saf'raboli] as above. --Macrakis 04:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't. Should we rename the page in el:wiki to Σαφράμπολη, or is it that Θεοδωρούπολη Tekleni mentioned? •NikoSilver• 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Phanariote

Τα έχω πάρει στο κρανίο μ'αυτό τον τύπο στους Phanariote. Είδα ότι επιμένει να αφαιρεί το link για την Κωνσταντινούπολη, ενώ συνεχώς του λέω ότι στο σχετικό άρθρο αναφέρεται ότι η πόλη κράτησε ως επίσημο το όνομα αυτό έως το 1930 (βλ. Constantinople), οπότε το link είναι τουλάχιστον χρήσιμο, για να μην πω απαραίτητο. Το επανέφερα και είμαι διατεθειμένος να το τραβήξω μέχρι τέλος, για να πάρει ένα μάθημα επιτέλους! Δεν είναι συμπεριφορά συνεργάσιμου Wikipedian αυτή! Κάνει τέτοια σαματά για ένα link! Eίναι σοβαρός;! Δε θέλω να είμαι εθνικιστής, αλλά για χάρη του θα γίνω! Θέλω να προσέχεις και εσύ το άρθρο και να επέμβεις, όταν αρχίσει το μπουγιουρντί! Ίσως αν επέμβουμε όλοι μαζί να μαζευτεί λίγο!

Θα στείλω σχετικό μήνυμα και στο Miskin. Ψήφισες;--Yannismarou 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, relax. On the matter itself, I'm answering on my own talkpage. Τα λέμε, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Georgian name

Hi Niko. My sources chiefly speak about the Byzantine influence on Georgian royal imagery. Inasmuch as most late ancient/early medieval Georgian philosophers and scholars were educated in the Byzantine centers, the name Berdzeni is most probably based on the notion that philosophy was born in Greece. I remember I have read about it somewhere, but unfortunately I could not find the source directly stating that. Regards, Kober 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Modern Greeks also deserve the name, btw. :)--Kober 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever

First of all, the suggestion that Istanbul was not in use before 1930 is absurd. I am also willing to wager that "it was not official" because no name was actually official - we both know, however, the one used by the Ottomans then and the Turks now. I do not care about the symbol's sttatus, but I know irrelevant links do not belong. Even if statements about the name adoption would not be the halftruths they are, I still have to point out that the link should lead to where the information is - in this context, pointing out "the year when it became official" makes no sense on Earth. My very point was always about not providing misleading links: I thought it was clear enough, therefore I had assumed you lied when you told me I was wrong about the article. In what concerns the manual of style, I was therefore right. Consider the purpose of linking, if you will. If not, carry on the POV-pushing on every single small topic. Either way, whatever. Dahn 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. •NikoSilver• 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Niko, I think Dahn has a point here. The question is not whether the linguistic forms "Istanbul" or "Constantinople" were most common or most relevant in the period in question, but whether the Wikipedia articles Istanbul or Constantinople contain the content most relevant for the reader at that point. And as for the linguistic history, my understanding is also that Dahn is right: 1930 only saw the final decision of getting rid of the the alternative forms ("Konstantiniyye" etc.) in the official state documents and buraucracy; but the form "Istanbul" wasn't just invented out of thin air on that date. It must of course have been the normal everyday name used in Ottoman Turkish all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aiming to remove the link from Istanbul. I only linked also Constantinople. I think that since the only thing we know for sure is that the 'Istanbul' name was officialized in 1930, we may link both names. I admit that part of my reaction was due to the general disruptive behavior against the other contributors (frequent edit conflicts etc) plus this edit summary (especially after my polite warning). I wouldn't edit war over something so trivial, but I really think that it has to be linked because it doesn't hurt! •NikoSilver• 18:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Please leave my talk page!

I happened to be browising back to this page, Niko, and I note that you are again providing halftruths. "I admit that part of my reaction was due to the general disruptive behavior against the other contributors" - you may have whatever opinion you feel like having about my edits, Niko, but "disruptive" is a word that would need proof. I have protested against POV getting in the text, and was faced with a cabal of editors who reverted any contribution I made on principle. When the disruptive behavour of other editors stopped, virtually all my edits were kept in the text per agreement with all contributors to the article. In fact, if you were to have had the curtesy to actually look into what the disagreements were before shouting wolf, you would have noted that I never objected to Greek contributions, and that I was generally protesting against the very bad idea of splitting the article. Also note that I was, at the time, dealing with edits who struck deep in the territory of Romanian history without the editors having a clue what they were talking about (and merely editing on the belief that I was wrong). Throughout the process, I (unlike some Greek contributors) appealed to no outside help, believing that stacking is not an acceptable tactic, and aknowledging that I was to discredit my edits if I were to present mine as a "Romanian POV" (it was not, and I never saw a piece of evidence -or at least familiarity with the topic- from anyone that said it was). And, in general, feel free to comment on my POV when you will see me carrying banners suggesting how other countries should rename themselves!

I stand by my original assessment, Niko, and I deserve an explanation. You say that "I wasn't aiming to remove the link from Istanbul. I only linked also Constantinople. I think that since the only thing we know for sure is that the 'Istanbul' name was officialized in 1930, we may link both names" (btw, "officialized in 1930" IS NOT "the only thing we know for sure" - it is obvious to anyone that the name was in use before 1930, that no name was actually "official" in the sense that it has today during the Ottoman period, and that languages such as my own have borrowed and used the term "Istanbul" from as far back as the 17th century). And yet, your edit summary said: "rv check again when it ends - be polite". Which means that you either had not looked through the article, or that you had and you were claiming that it ended where you wanted it to end. In either case, you were hiding the truth. Don't worry, you were not the first one: Miskin had been doing the very same, on the very same topic.

On the issue of "linking Constantinople as well" - Niko, I still do not believe you are official instructor on this topic, but, as we stand now, it is misleading (provides a link to an irrelevant article) and overlinking (if Constantinople and Istanbul are one and the same, it is incomprihensible why one would link them both, side by side). As I have said: GO AHEAD and ask the people who contributed the article WHY THEY STOPPED IN THE 15TH CENTURY. If you feel like it, campaign for them to change it there. Do not gather points by linking irrelevant things on related pages just because those contributors are not looking everywhere, and actuallu explain yourself where it matters. Dahn 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I promise to read that if you manage to summarise it to at least half. For now, please don't flood my page. •NikoSilver• 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Witty. Dahn 20:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will still urge you to read the entire message, Niko. I have the right not to be misrepresented, and I have the right to defend my image as an editor in as many words as I wish. Dahn 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I give you that. I will read it. Take my comment as a general advice though. If I may. •NikoSilver• 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it (pheww). :-) Now to the point:

• Nobody called me, if that's what you imply. I had watchlisted this article months ago, and intervened because I saw it jumping like a bean in my watchlist.

I didn't imply anything about you. I had merely noted that, at the time, I was trying to get through to a couple of inflamed IPs that they should actually inform themselves on what the topics are. They had been called to the article because it had been advertised (with the added bias) on the project page. That is what I call disruptive. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know. Thanks for clarif. Case closed. --NS

Any time. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Case closed as per the fact you didn't mean I was called. That doesn't mean I endorse the rest of your comment.--NS

• I use WP:POPUPS. While editing, the image of Constantinople popped-up, showing me the intro without the dab note above. The intro clearly says 1930.

Well, then, you must have missed my point every one of the two hundred times I had made it. I had asked you to look into where the article's text ended, not when the use of the name allegedly did. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't imagine that intro and history would have different dates. The intro clearly says 1930. --NS

Niko, I suggest you actually read the article. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have. What is your point? --NS

• Disruption: You may disagree, but I find your authoritative tone, your consecutive intermingled edits, and the length of all your comments disruptive. Kindly WP:COOL, and wait for the others to finish what they are doing. Then talk/edit and most of all: be brief! There are NO WP:MASTODONS around to eat you up and The World Will Not End Tomorrow!! Also see Laconic.

Well, I find disregarding and condescending one's point disruptive. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't go back to square one. I read it. Take my advise and enjoy reading at least WP:MASTODONS! --NS

I have more neutral people to take advice from. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Than the writers of WP:MASTODONS? On what grounds? Ah, now I see: That was meant as a WP:NPA. Silly me, I thought WP:AGF would work. --NS

• Misleading: Nothing is misleading. Both articles are interlinked. An additional link cannot be 'misleading'. The lack of a link could, but I didn't unlink Istanbul.

Yes, it is. First of all: the article currently says "present-day Istanbul" - which would imply that "Istanbul" is a secondary link,and that the relevant info is provided at the "Constantinople" article. It is not, so the link has no point being there. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you forget for once about where this part of history is included? Rephrasing can solve the 'present-day' thing. --NS

To answer your question: no, I can't. In fact, I should not. I don't think editing on wikipedia and condoning historical revisionism can go hand in hand. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you can write a book of arguments on why linking a name to an existing article (that would exist either way within the text) can be revisionistic! --NS

• Overlinking: Check Talk:Gdansk/Vote for a precedent. Phanariotes is a Greece related article. This whole thing is debatable but it is soooo stupid, that nobody on earth would start an edit-war about it, reverting it all the time!! (disruption)

"Phanariotes is a Greece related article". Say I were to believe that it is Greece-related article (although it looks to me like more of a Balkans- and Ottoman-related article, especially given that Greece did not exist at the time). Say I did. So? What is your point and how is it supposed to connect with the issue?

I am familiar with the Gdansk precedent, and I note, as I did then, that Danzig was chosen as the link name in articles dealing with the history of the city before some date (I think it is 1918). Precisely my point, Niko: if the article deals with Constantinople not before 1930, but before 1453, what you indicate as a parallel has no relevancy. This is why I advised you to go and ask them to change format in that page. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We will, at a later date. Gdansk is relative, because Phanariotes (and not... Feneriotes) called it like that. Didn't they? Their descendants still do. --NS

"We will" - there you go, Miskin. This is the type of mentality one has to deal with. Again: no, not "at a latter date" - one does not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, Niko! impose a convension at its source, then modify related articles accordingly - otherwise, you are using conventions that you dreamt of last night. The rest of your reply is just a rudimentary pamphlet (Phanariotes is the term as preferred in English; Phanariotes had several lines of succession; the issue of Phanariotes use or do not use Greek or any other language is of no possible relevancy to the use of a word in an English article). Let me also note that you are again switching answers, this time from the "I just wanted both of them linked" argument you gave to a good faith user just above! Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The term preferred in English just happens to be the transliteration of the Greek word Φαναριώτες. Maybe your Romanian History expertee expands to Greek orthography as well? Teach me. As per the relevance, Gdansk/Danzig apart from dates is also used in the respective countries' articles. That is a lot heavier than just linking a term that would exist either way. --NS

• You may brag about being an expert in Romanian history if you wish, but not in the context of underestimating other users' knowledge and effort.

I am not "an expert on Romanian history", Niko. I am, however, more of an expert than anyone who tells me that the Ghicas were not allowed to declare themselves Greek after 1821 (by whom?!) and, at the same time, that no Phanariotes in Romania were really Greeks to begin with. For all the edits made by those editors in the area of Romanian history, Niko, no reference was being provided: all of them were subjective, utterly uninformed, and ultimately absurd comments on topics that I happened to know, if you will, the bare essential on. But I did know the bare essential, Niko. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't go into details and I don't want to be dragged in the actual debates there. I am speaking about ways of debating, not the views themselves. And you are doing it again. --NS

Great. Perhaps, if we were to sit in front of each other and argue, you could also tell me a need a mint, I need to tuck my shirt in my pants, and what not. If you do have to be the critical sophist, be that for everybody involved. And no, I did not ask you either to give me your insight on Romanian history: I'm pretty sure you would have nothing to contribute. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Naaah, don't apologize! You'll spoil the fun of how insisting a guy can be over two brackets!

• I repeat: The only thing we know for a fact is that the term Istanbul was officialized in 1930. Everything else is an assumption. A rational one, but still, an assumption. It's also out of the point, because even if all appellations pre-existed, then also all should be linked.

So, you tell me that the term Istanbul was not in use, at all, before 1930? They just invented it, right? There is no written document used by the Ottomans featuring the word? And, even if this theory were to hold water, care to tell me why you and others who support it do not go and campaign for it on the article that refuses to extended the history of "Constantinople" after the 1450s? Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you tell me that it did. I just say what I know: It was officialized in 1930. Before that, there was no official name, so Istanbul is as wrong as Constantinople may be. It's just that Phanariotes didn't call it as the former. --NS

Care to check it our, Niko? Perhaps it is possible that you may now for sure if it was used, instead of trusting pieces of propaganda. I have already answered why it is of no importance what the Phanariotes called it (especially when they did not provide the links on wikipedia); and just perhaps you will see that a person living in the city is not necessarily the master of that city (as German-speakers were in Danzig). Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Check what out? Do you have a source that it was official before 1930? WTF does this have to do with propaganda or who was the master? To use your words, go change that intro first! --NS

• Personal comment: You have a great potential, but you exhaust yourself in insignificant details.

•NikoSilver• 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, should I go and unlink it now? Because it is insignificant, you see, therefore it shuld not matter one way or the other... Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The action of going ahead and linking it is much less provocative than that of unlinking it. You understand why. I would advise you didn't. Even if I wouldn't intervene (which I can't guarantee because I am not convinced) someone else will, and the whole process will be disrupted again over TWO FUCKING BRACKETS! (Jeez I needed that scream! huh? no mastodons? :-)) •NikoSilver• 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go, Niko: the word and its brackets are insignificant, right? So then ould be unlinking it - which would also confirm with wikipedia usage. Am I "provocative" for reverting something insignificant into an insignificant something else, especially when I do it following guidelines?! Who am I provoking? Those who have trouble understanding the Manual of Style? Those who have trouble reading an article all the way through? Let me stress this: if you were to have succeeded in moving and stabilizing the content 1453 to 1930 (or at least 1453 to 1918) content of the Istanbul article to the second half of Constantinople, I personally would have been helping to move and sort links in the articles in that direction. Since this is not the case, you and all the crowd of various users and IPs make no sense. I am probably not going to remove the link, as the perspective of hide-and-seek games with you and other master sophists is far from enchanting; however, this debate served to understand your motivations and your blatant POV. I will instead consider dropping a note to non-biased users interested in the history of the city, as well as one to Turkish users, to see how they feel the matter should be dealt with. Such a liberal use of conventions in order to prove various point deserves a serious looking into. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Provocative, because the article exists, and why not be linked as many other words/terms in many other articles. Linking it has a justification: it exists and that doesn't hurt. Unlinking it would only be because of POV. Again: I didn't unlink Istanbul! Why does the history section have to match when there is a dab note on top? Why must users interested in that part of previous history not be able to click and read? Go figure. On the other hand, be my guest. I'll be more than happy to see your insistense further exposed. Do whatever you please, just be gone from my talk page. Your escalated repetitive disruption over nitches (at best) prevents me from making useful edits. •NikoSilver• 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quotes

Thanks! eixa ksexasei pou eixes pei na vrw piges... Tha psaksw na vrw ki alla! PS: den kanw asfalistika metra se filarakia...:) Ciao Hectorian 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of foreign language on talk pages

These ridiculous accusations are primarily against me, but they aslo involve you. Tale a look also at my talk page (bottom) and at User talk:Ghirlandajo#Re to your request. In the last case, check also the history of the article to see an answer of mine this specific user arbitrarily deleted. You'll also see from the deleted answer why this user has a personal problem with me.--Yannismarou 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, your comments are misleading. I don't have "a personal problem" with you. Neither do I "accuse" you of anything as you seem to imply. I just want to make clear whether we have a certain guideline and whether adopting such a guideline would be reasonable. As best I know, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground and use of native languages in the English version of the project is discouraged. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don;t allow to anybody to call me a conspirator! This was the worse insult somebody could make to me. Now, Ghirla, you'll face the consequences of your mere words.--Yannismarou 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Awnsered.--Aldux 22:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New Constitution of Serbia

It's going to get adopted in this Saturday/Sunday! Only the new Montenegrin Constitution needs to be drawn and there's only the Croatian Constitution remaining. The latter is a little odd; it's more like the Constitution of the Croat ethnic group, rather than the state of Croatia; as it deals with Croats in general (in Bosnia and Vojvodina too; defines Croatia the nation-state of the Croat people). It's very odd and I think that it will be changed in due time. --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee! I didn't know! With this reasoning, the third largest city in Greek population (which is Melbourne, Australia with some 170,000) belongs to the Greek nation! I think they'll change that, most Croats I've met were reasonable... •NikoSilver• 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Constitution also named Serbs, Muslims, Italians, Hungarians, Jews and others, but in a rather ambigous manner; that they could in Constitutional Law be considered both or either recognized peoples of Croatia and/or its minorities. It is only recently that they changed the Constitution to clearly state "ethnic minorities", so that there would be no confusion that they are the peoples of Croatia. And the Constitution is working in 100% efficiency in Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 21:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiction, joke or madness?

How do you anger Bulgarians, Greeks but also Albanians and Serbs? Or make them laugh? Look at [1]. It is the official history of the 'country' as presented by the government in its official brochure. Of course, like all good fiction, it has a copywrite at the botom of the page. Politis 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll add that link where applicable...•NikoSilver• 09:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The History of Greece WikiProject Newsletter Issue II - October 2006
Project news This is our second Newsletter! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered , its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions! The Peer review department has been created; it hopes to become an important tool for the amelioration of the articles within the scope of the project. Please, review and get reviewed! The {{WPHOG Sidebar}} is ready! Please fell free to comment on its form and to improve it. New parameters have been added to the {{WPHOG}}, so that any article in the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Politics and politicians task force can be marked by adding task force1=yes to the {{WPHOG}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Politics and politicians task force articles. Check our Open Tasks. New shortcuts for the Main page, the Assessment department and the Peer reviews department have been created. This will make easier your wikilinking!	Current proposals and discussions Discussion continues about the possible imrovements of the follownig articles: Phanariotes, Byzantine Empire and the naming of Iraklion Archaeological Museum and Heraklion. Check the talk pages of these articles and feel free to contribute. A discussion about the organization of some face to face meet-ups has begun in the Outreach department. If you think that this would be feasible and productive, please feel free to participate in this discussion.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Adultery

Wha' you weren't happy with the first defloration and sought for more?! I'm really offended... Duja 13:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was an incognito affair, but I guess you got me! Maybe if you weren't that quick (15') last time, I would prefer you again! •NikoSilver• 13:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I mistakenly posted to Glen's talk page instead of yours; but now, since you're trying to hide the traces of your adultery, I'll move it there (and protect the page if necessary). Glen doesn't have to witness our chitchat... Duja 13:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But Glen and I now are in a different kind of relationship. I think it concerns him too. •NikoSilver• 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Niko, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for your constant supporrt & actions throughout the week! :-) —Khoikhoi 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove

•Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Signature shop

Not requesting, just happen upon your Signature shop, by far some of the best signatures I've seen, I made mine to look like an old Commodore 64 :), although the ones you have made are truly amazing! Very Nice Work~~=Sirex98= 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing things up

And we have new additions here.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Thanks. This is most hillarious! I'd post them myself but had forgotten the page existed! •NikoSilver• 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I broke 3RR, so I had to self revert.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Niko. Regarding the edit, I feel a clear distinction should be made between cases like those of Georgevski (now) and Misirkov (in the past) and such that were under an authoritarian and pro-nazi government. More important, could you send again your e-mail? For some strange reasons it hasn't arrived. Ciao,--Aldux 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still got problems with the mail, sorry.--Aldux 15:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Niko, your mailbox seems to be over-full. Got too many people sending you fan mail? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it? That 1net account is free but of really small capacity. Will fix now. Try in 10 mins. •NikoSilver• 13:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, and received all in one your emails.--Aldux 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Akalp

Hi Niko, i dont think i am the best person to try and mentor this man. Firstly i lack time and patience, second my Turkish is quite awful :). Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

То идес афто?

Кита ти врика [2]. Каноника иха тин ендипоси пос афти и Карађозидес тис «Патриотикис Симахиас» ден итан на тус пернис ста совара, ала тора пистево пос ехун ен мери дикио ан бун и Турки стин ЕЕ се мерика хрониа, та ехун тин плиопсифиа стин евро-вули ће тоте влепо тин ЕЕ на акирони тин анагнориси тус тис арменикис геноктониас ће на анагноризи ти легомени Туркики Димократиа Вориу Кипру. Та имасте поли малаћес ан афисуме тетио прагма на симви.--Tekleni 10:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ИС: архизо на синитизо афто то fad на графуме та елиника ме кириликус характирес ;-) --Tekleni 10:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Occupation of İzmir

Well...I'm not really used to AfD and I'm not entirely sure how to close it. Also, even though I could withdraw my vote, I'm still not comfortable with closing it as I've been too invovled in this article. Yeah, I liked the way you styled it. What's your opinion on the article? Do you think it should be renamed, deleted, or merged? I think the topic is notable enough to merit it's own article, personally. I would support a rename, however. Khoikhoi 18:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I see what you're saying. You agree, however, that the subject istelf is notable—right? Khoikhoi 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Khoikhoi 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Hi

Replied at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ypsilantis and consistency

I have asked you to do something which is common curtesy. I have told you already that I resented when someone up and changed the titles of the articles without changing the name as used in the article. Tell me, when you saw the infobox, did you wonder that other infoboxes and a main page in connection with them currently feature the names as used in Romanian (because they were created at that time)? No? Perhaps it be revealed to you now, and perhaps, if you're so keen on tagging various places on wikipedia, you could at least do it consistently. I have to tell you: changing the names of all rulers from the Romanian form to the Anglicised Greek, where it applies is a demanding task. What you are doing appears to be extremely arrogant, and implies that people ought to go and replace the version of the names everywhere they may appear, when you will change it one place and revert to that particular version ad nauseam. Do I make myself clear? If so, go and do something about it.

As should be apparent to anyone, I can and I will use the word "goddamn" to refer to various inanimate objects, as I well please. Your theory on how that is "not constructive" is not an object for my research, frankly, and I consider your claim to interpret and communicate the real meaning of wikipedia guidelines to be rather amusing. Dahn 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir: what seems to be the problem here? Greece and Romania have had a very long period of warm relations. Romanians greatly admire Greeks, and some of our best-loved historical figures (Caragiale, Queen Elena, Paleologu, etc.) have been of Greek descent. There is no need for animosity or nationalist posturing. Please, as Orthodox brothers in Christ, let us resolve our disputes peacefully. Biruitorul 22:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To Dahn:

• "Tell me, when you saw the infobox, did you wonder that other infoboxes and a main page in connection with them currently feature the names as used in Romanian (because they were created at that time)? No? Perhaps it be revealed to you now, and perhaps, if you're so keen on tagging various places on wikipedia, you could at least do it consistently. I have to tell you: changing the names of all rulers from the Romanian form to the Anglicised Greek, where it applies is a demanding task."
  • Rsp: No I didn't and I shouldn't. I just saw a redirect, and changed it. If there are others too, I'll help. That doesn't mean I will not correct the existing one according to policy.
• "What you are doing appears to be extremely arrogant, and implies that people ought to go and replace the version of the names everywhere they may appear when you will change it one place and revert to that particular version ad nauseam."
  • Rsp: WP:MOVE#Other_notes: "Always check the What links here for your page, and if there are multiple levels of redirects, go fix the links to point to the new location directly." This should have already been done by the mover. I didn't seek (and have no business to do so) who's fault it is, nor do I care. I just correct one mistake when I see it, and if people around are kind and goodwilling, maybe they'll do the same and correct them all, instead of reverting the correct version for no reason.

As a side note, your empathy towards my edits and towards the Greek people in general, is evident from your constant pushing for Romanising everything Greek (as if there's a contest). You POV is so strong (as evident from your ...neutral version in Phanariotes) that I have lost every hope to bring you along and assuming the assumption of good faith. I have chosen to ignore your edits, and you are not welcome in my talk-page either (as I have already told you). •NikoSilver• 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have objected to the fact that you displaced an edit, and not all. I did not even object to the change (and I have personally moved the article created as Nicolae Mavrogheni to Nicholas Mavrogenis), I just asked you to not leave a job half-done. I have not even indicated that I agree with Biruitorul's verdict on what version Wallachian and Moldavian infoboxes should contain (especially since we did not apply the rule elsewhere), and I do not understand why you would consider that a better reasoning (I'm willing to bet you would not have accepted it from me).

The version of the article you link was, as I have said, by no means final (I had taken a superficial interest in the article, and was not even endorsing everything in that article - as proven by my subsequent edits). In fact, if you had any interest other than painting a motivated picture, you could note that everything positive about Phanariotes was added by me, that I removed the idiotic and outdated remarks about "explotation" and "corruption", that I have provided context and depth (all of which I have done slowly, and on the basis of references); as you may see, I expanded coverage of several Phanariote reigns at the same time I expanded the main article (it was a consistent and complicated activity, and I don't particularly need Miskin's rhetoric to take me out of context). Nothing negative in that version or any other was added by me: make sure you read, for example, the current referenced part where I indicate that the economic problems were, in fact, caused by the local gentry (I can also translate the part I recently added in Romanian on Talk:Anton Maria Del Chiaro). All the "Romanian" focus on that page reflects the basic outline of the page as I found it, and my additions regarded the removal of what some Romanian xenophobes view to be "the truth" - I have not "Romanianzed" anything, and I have discussed with a competent and arguably neutral Greek user (User:Greece666) including the information relevant to Greek history on which I had little expertise.

I try to maintain objective, Niko; if you do so as well (and I sincerely doubt it), go and read about it in the very article you reference. One more thing: I do not think in any collective terms, racial or national or cultural, so your observations about "my empathy towards the Greeks" or "lack of it" are equally insulting. Dahn 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We too have probably started on the wrong foot. It appears we have common friends. That means a lot to me. I won't further poison this discussion by pasting diffs of my first encounter by you (or vice versa). Instead, I'll go ahead and dazzle you: Let's start over! You will find I am one of the most peaceful editors in WP (until one steps on my toe ugly). So, I am willing to put all that mistrust and dissonance behind me. The question is are you? •NikoSilver• 22:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a bit like an invitation to join the Camorra, but what the hey. Let's have a truce. Dahn 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be expecting one of these next year. Biruitorul 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Do you recognize the Armenian Genocide too? •NikoSilver• 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Turk, our common enemy! Yes, yes I do. Biruitorul 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I'll take that as a compliment. If it makes any difference, I myself felt like kissing the Devil... •NikoSilver• 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To Biruitorul: Maybe your message was one of the most moving messages I've ever received in WP. Thank you. Be certain, that I am not the one building up the heat. I have shown great patience and goodwill to everyone, despite the fact that I am being constantly attacked. •NikoSilver• 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh... Niko, just a little thing. Dahn was right. There was no need to change that link. Links to redirects are perfectly fine. Only redirects to redirects must be eliminated. If the Romanian form of that name made sense in the context of that particular article or template - and Dahn was making a case that it is - then to link to the redirect was perfectly okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FP, no it doesn't have any sense in the context of the article, and no, Dahn didn't make a case on that. Dahn made a case on my link being a redir too, since I had overseen to add the parentheses. See Alexander Ypsilantis dab page. I am really tired with Dahn opposing every single edit, and I don't like his POV and his manners. Check [his version of Phanariotes for a glimpse. Greek editors have made tremendously disproportionate efforts in bringing it to today's version, still dealing with his objections for every single edit. •NikoSilver• 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, mine was a redirect to the article,yours was one to the disambig page. I have asked you that, when you were to eventually click the link in question and see what the problem was (how ironic that you were "dismbiguating" in this manner), to also go and do it in other articles. Why? Plenty of treasons: doing it on the basis of iny miny miney mo (just as Miskin handeled the renaming of Phanariote articles) would lead to instances of infoboxes featuring a a Romanian version and a "Ypsilantis" side by side!; there are many infoboxes with Ypsilantis' name in them, but iny miny miney mo resulted in just one featuring the version you favour (I have asked you why?). Ever since the problem was posed, Niko, I thought about unifying the versions in circulation in infoboxes and on the Rulers of Wallachia/Rulers of Moldavia page, which was the forseeable outcome of such moves - it is a very annoying task, as is obvious, and should preferably be completed in one go. What you did was to pull out a card from a card castle - and since, as Future Perfect has noted, this was not necessary (or at least not urgent), and since, as you yourself have noted, the link you kept providing was not leading to the proper place, what you did counted as an arrogant assumption. Dahn 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I bet you are again busy writing your next answer to the next thread and won't notice my previous answer to your previous thread. :-) •NikoSilver• 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, actually. I was not watching this page. Dahn 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Niko; I appreciate the reply. I know these matters can get tricky and it's important that we all work with a positive spirit. And I do know that you've tried very hard to be calm and respectful.

A few months ago I visited Brăila with my grandmother (she grew up there). And when we entered the Greek church there, I'll always remember the Romanian man who was there saying to us, "Eu iubesc poporul grec" - "I love the Greek people"! That feeling is very common in Romania. And by the way, how did my grandmother's family end up in Brăila? Her grandfather, a member of the Hristos family of Ρόδος, came to settle in Romania. So we are still a little bit Greek and very proud to share a link with your great country, which has given so much to the world. So let us proceed peacefully and remember the words of Saint John: "αγαπητοι ει ουτως ο θεος ηγαπησεν ημας και ημεις οφειλομεν αλληλους αγαπαν". Biruitorul 18:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks B. I have travelled to Romania myself. Been to Costanta, Bucuresti and Ploesti. Know a lot of Romanians there, and a couple of immigrants here. I know many Vlachs too. I go along with everybody, and respect your values, your manners and your philhellenism. I may confess being a Philoromanian too! Are you aware of the issue of the dispute with Dahn? What is your opinion? •NikoSilver• 19:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's nice; I got bitten by a dog recently in Constanţa; I hope you had no similar experiences there. I think this sort of informal cultural exchange--meeting people, travelling, conversing, goes a long way toward dissipating negative opinions some peoples have about each other. Anyway, as for the dispute itself: as far as I know, it had to do with the redirect of Ypsilantis/Ipsilanti. Frankly, I don't think it's a huge issue, but I do think that, since the article on his predecessor is purely about his time in Wallachia, he should be called Ipsilanti in the succession box. Then again, the article on the man is titled Ypsilantis, so I suppose that either could work, as long as you're consistent. Is there more to the story? Dahn seemed rather angry. Biruitorul 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok people, now THIS is a valid argument. I am not going to discuss the correctness of the argument, but it has validity. I really don't understand why if we are friends and allies we have to change each-other's name in articles of each-other's content, but really don't care! Have it your way, if you feel that it has a 'purpose' which I cannot understand. I am curious though, so somebody may explain if you wish... •NikoSilver• 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I guess there isn't that much of a purpose, so if it goes back to Ypsilantis, it won't be the end of the world as we know it; I think there's a case to be made for both sides, and I made the case for Ispislanti. Biruitorul 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In Constanta I stayed in that thin line of earth between the lake and the Black Sea; Mamaia, I think, fantastic scenery. Yes, there is more with Dahn, but that is besides this issue.

First off, I must tell you that I am sick of all those debates about names in alternative languages and about compatible names in compatible turfs. We are not dogs to pee around our WP:OWN articles (inspired by the one that bit you)! These convenient solutions for renaming cities/countries/people in articles about other POV's only apply when there is an actual dispute about it.

For example, see the precedent of Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Check also that Republic of Macedonia is called Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in all Greece related articles. Same for certain Turkish names. But in these cases, there's an actual documented, cited dispute! Here, we're friends and allies for centuries. We don't need that poison between us, nor is there any misconception about calling a guy Ipsilanti vs Ypsilantis. Hell, it could have been a transliteration thing to begin with!

I urge my fellow Romanian editors, to use the most frequent names of Greeks in the Romanian related articles, and be certain that the Greeks would do the same for your people in Greek related articles. Remember: there is no dispute to begin with! Why make it sound there is one? •NikoSilver• 10:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, Mamaia, wonderful though quite crowded in summer. It's too bad the USSR and Bulgaria had to take so much prime beach real estate in 1940! I like the dog metaphor; we should indeed rise above that level.

As for what guideline we should use: I think it should be case-by-case. The article John Hunyadi gives a Hungarian version of the man's name, but in some purely Romania-related articles, we do give his Romanian name, Iancu de Hunedoara. I was arguing for that idea with Ypsilantis/Ipsilanti as well. But you are right: there is no dispute, no need for petty anger to come between us. I, for one, am proud to have had Greeks rule over us and bring us their culture, architecture, learning, civilisation; if he's listed as Ypsilantis, that will not be a concern for me. I can't speak for all Romanians, though; it remains to be seen how they react. Biruitorul 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your kind words for my people. I too believe that both our histories and our peoples had a lot to benefit from each other in their historic friendship. We must be a very rare example in the heated Balkan region. I will not forcibly apply my viewpoint in a primarily Romanian-history related article, even if there is no dispute to begin with. I am watching that page, and sincerely hope for a miracle, which will make all those who are eager to see us involved in an inflamatory debate, rub their eyes! •NikoSilver• 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think it is a rare thing, although Romanians are also very close friends of the much-maligned Serbs. I am glad to hear you say you will not change it; I too, if I see it become Ypsilantis, will not make a change. Let's just keep watching the article and making sure it improves, and not get bogged down in trivialities. Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to further cooperation in the future! Biruitorul 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Malakas

Hey Niko, I've added the page to my watchlist—how does that sound? Regarding -Inanna-, how do you know it's her? ;-) Khoikhoi 09:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

New articles

I just created a New Articles in the History of Greece section after the discussion we had. Please, check my comment in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece#New articles section, make your own comments and feel free to edit the new section. I hope this effort Aldux initiated will attrack the attention it deserves.--Yannismarou 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Can't... help... revising... my... signature... •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I could have never assumed this silly sub-page of mine would have such a great impact on one of its visitors! •NikoSilver• 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then ask an administrator do delete your signature shop! •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Extremity was never my forte. •NikoSilver• 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 10:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean I like it, but not so much as to deal with it every single hour. •NikoSilver• 10:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 10:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did they put you on trial? :X •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 10:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Srgsp

Hello, NikoSilver, not a request, but just saw your signature shop and it is one of the best subpages I have seen! Srgsp 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And make sure you check out my userpage. Srgsp 03:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That will definitely remove some load from my shoulders, you obnoxious and slimy plagiarising copyright violator of a sock! •NikoSilver• 09:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Malakies

How do you like this? [3] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Could you skim around for a "Προς τον ίδιον υιόν Ρωμανόν"... I might have spelled wrong... It's popular in English as "De Administrando Imperio". It used to have an online version - but I can't find it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you spelled it right. What exactly is it you want? Google? •NikoSilver• 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Found it in English in ...fr:wiki: [4] •NikoSilver• 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturally it was from the en:wiki... All links from Google were moot... •NikoSilver• 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

bummer .... --PaxEquilibrium 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You wanted an answer

Niko, I am very disappointed in your behavior, especially seeing that you are obviously a very intelligent and cosmopolitan individual. How dare you suggest that I am biased because I specialize in editing material on the topic of pederasty?! You if anyone should know full well that bias is in the quality of one's edits, not in their nature. And I found your imposition of one's sexuality as a factor of the discussion in poor taste. Again, it is not one's self-identification which predisposes one to bias, it is one's lack of maturity. And at any rate, I do not subscribe to the gay/straight dichotomy.

I am sorry, on the other hand, for having suggested that your ethnic background may have been a factor in any lack of objectivity. But you have to realize that we have been abused for some time now by a series of individuals who have played the system in order to impose their own will on the rest of us. I see you have some Italian, there is a good expression, "ci hanno preso in giro". And who has been behind that? Self-styled Greek nationalists defending their country's "honor." Haiduc 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you've had such bad experiences with nationalists, but you didn't need to generalize that to include my case. I am glad you apologize, as I did in that talk. Regardless if it applies to us, I continue to believe that sexual-pov is stronger than nationalism in this, and as I told you repeatedly I can imagine Greek nationalist gays supporting your side. I am glad you don't subscribe to this gay/straight dichotomy. I did not suggest you are biased, I suggested you had more reasons to be biased than the ones (me) you dare accuse of. As an excuse for both of us, I suppose the Italians would also say "cazzi tuoi", and that would apply to the predisposition of others for both gay-pov-pushers and nationalist-pov-pushers. :-) On the other hand, I am glad this discussion is leading to a consensus, and sincerely hope you realize in the end that my intervention in that talk (bitterness aside) was a significant factor for it. •NikoSilver• 10:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take that last statement as an indication of your sense of humor. My personal view is that the "solution" arrived at is intellectually dishonest and does not respect the current state of the scholarship on this subject. But WP is and always will be a work in progress.

I wish you well in your diving - I have done a bit of skin diving myself so we have that in common. I hope the Lebanon spill has not been as great a disaster as it looked to be - it seems to have faded from the media for the moment. Regards, Haiduc 12:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and suggest you start scuba too. It's fascinating, almost like hovering in space (not that I ever had the experience of course).

I take it from this that you are not happy with the consensus. It seems that (as all other users involved agree), assumed homosexuality was just one aspect of Alexander's sexual behavior. We cannot separate that completely without mentioning the rest, nor would it be correct to assign all sub-actions of Ancient Greek eros to him. It's like instead of simply describing me as e.g. an omnivore, you describe me as a carnivorous vegetarian. Especially given that these relationships are assumed, and especially given that this partition to human sexual orientation is a very recent phenomenon (mid-19th century), thereby making it anachronistic. It seems that Ancient Greek sexuality is the natural predecessor of all modern branches of sexuality, and not the other way around. That was my initial proposal, and I am glad that everybody agrees. I sincirely hope you reconsider your position. •NikoSilver• 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest that any further debate on this be done in the relative talks. I will include a link to this heading in G.A.'s talk. •NikoSilver• 13:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo-TRNC

Dear Niko, Thanks for your re editing. Your version seems much better. Regards. Mustafa Akalp^TC 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Malakies

Somebody on WP:ANI commented about our tribulations that the article should really be deleted. I think they got a point, per WP:NOT a dictionary. Shall we just ask for unprotection to get an AFD tag slapped on?

And another article that I'd almost forgotten but which still is around is that old Peloponnesians (Greek) thingie. I still can't for the life of me see what that page is supposed to be doing, and nobody has worked on it to make it less forkish. Would you mind if I just silently redirected it?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll redirect those unworthy forkish Peloponnesians myself (more weight since I'm the one who wrote it). For Malakas, although WP:NOT dictionary would partly apply, I disagree per ...WP:NOT paper, because it is also a counterculture phenomenon. See asshole and son of a bitch (pardon my temptation to replace 'and' with 'you' :-)). I understand the article probably fails to illustrate that as well, but we can surely expand it (quite rapidly). Wanna help? •NikoSilver• 11:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's breadth of coverage never ceases to amaze me. It truly is the master in its domain Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I noticed you mentioned dialect geography in your edit summary. Good point. I'm still procrastinating all that work on Modern Greek dialects ... (and when that's done we can have a link to it from Peloponnese of course). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've made a subpage on it. Feel free to edit (yeah, I know, tempted to replace that slash with a colon or an equal sign)! •NikoSilver• 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

More Malakies

I have been monitoring the anti-Cypriot POV in wikipedia that has recently been occuring in light of recent current events. From one unmentioned source, Expatkiwi is actively purpetrating in small steps this new kind of POV that goes against the Republic of Cyprus.(UNFanatic)

Re

Yessir! :-) Khoikhoi 08:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks!

Yannismarou has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for the great honor. And also thanks (even more!) for the necessary spelling correction! It seems that I'm a "γλωσσοπλάστης" without even realizing it!--Yannismarou 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thessaloniki

Thanks for returning Thessaloniki to the version where all names are included, I had forgotten that it was agreed that the names would go a bit down below, but I knew that Sshadow's deletion of it all wasn't right. CRCulver 14:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See my new proposal in the article's talk page. Miskin 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll

No, no, nothing serious. Please, have a say. --PaxEquilibrium 16:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FPC

No bother - it really is a good idea, IMO. And, frankly, if they don't like it, I'd like to see them do better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

hah

Check out this map. :)) - Francis Tyers · 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Armenia strawpoll

The reason I conducted the strawpoll on my talk page was because, as User:Caligvla's official advocate, I am trying to negotiate a compromise on this controversial issue. However, if you wish, I am quite happy for you to copy the strawpoll to the Talk:Armenia page, so as to throw it open to those not directly involved in this dispute. Walton monarchist89 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Se la face ay pale, la cause est... Se la face ay pale, la cause est... 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now, it's because of the amazing support during my recent request for adminship and because of all those new shiny buttons. And if in the future my use of them should not always be perfect please don't hesitate to shout at me any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

Phanariotes

I was asked a little while ago if I would intervene as an outside party to help resolve the dispute about the lead of this article. After a bit of a delay, I've made some proposals on the talk page; could you take a look at them and see what you think? Thanks, --Robth^Talk 05:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus

Please support the article Cyprus being nominated as a featured article and spread the word.(UNFanatic 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

I thank you for the informative note. As per your suggestion, I will try to look into it but it will take a while since I am busy this and next month. A small wikipedia hiatus I am afraid. Take care.(UNFanatic 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Flags

Hi, thought you might be interested in this: 84.164.228.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nothing problematic about the IP really. I just thought you might want to help adding these thingies, if you like them. I found a way of adding them more elegantly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done

Talk-page deleted as requested. Sorry, by the way, for not having found time to make up my mind and comment about your Fantasialand draft. Will do later. I was too busy trying out all my new shiny buttons, you know... Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered your point about the anon !vote on the template page. I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you there. In the case of the AfD, the matter is much clearer - don't worry, any closing admin will be able to see what's going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Result of Armenia poll

NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:

• Support 6 (although User:Hamparzoum's existence has been disputed by User:Tekleni.
• Neutral 1.
• Oppose 10.

As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)