User talk:Yannismarou/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Roman-Persian Wars

Hi, If you believe it has reached Good article criteria, you can nominate it here.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But I tend to go straight here!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review is easier. So I recommend to nominate it for GA review first.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that, Seyyed, but I really don't feel GAR is at this stage useful. First of all the article already went through a successful A-Class review in the WP:MILHIST, which is tougher than GAR. Therefore, the article is already at a higher status that GA. The next step is FAC now, and the article is almost there; I am just waiting for a good copy-editing by some native-English speakers I've asked for.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I disagree with you. A-Class review in the WP:MILHIST is not necessarily higher that GA review. For example Cyrus the Great isn't a good article anymore while it has past A-Class review. GA review has been tougher gradually. I can nominate the article if you let me.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the article you say lost GA status, then it should be proposed for a new MILHIST A-Class review, as I did with Greco-Persian Wars, when I saw that the article had ceased to be GA. But in the quality assessment A-Class is definitely higher than GA; and the article has no need for a GAR right now. I already told you that I intent to go for WP:FAC; something that will happen soon. So, I really see GAR as not necessary; actually as useless. The optimum challenge for the article is FAC. You can submit for GA, since articles are not our properties, and I cannot prevent you from doing so, but we may face the paradox the same article to be nominated at the same time for both GA and FA status; and I'll definitely focus on FAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I hope it would be successful in FA review.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I nominated the article. One more review in GAC will not harm I suppose!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll review your work. Please see my review here. Due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker like you, I'll ask another reviewer to complete my work.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm a native speaker neither!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, apparently some of my edits lead to misunderstanding. None of the pictures of the article have any problem and I just make some edits which doesn't relate to GA process. We can discuss about it later.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I introduced several sources to broad the coverage. But I can't neglect those issues.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

moved Roman–Persian Wars

I think you moved the pages for the "-" which is fine but we seem to have lost the link to GA/1.(look here) As you know how to move pages (never done it myself) can I ask you to move the existing GA/1 to the new Roman–Persian Wars. Thanks. Can I say the work rate on prose etc is amazing. Well Done. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the /GA1 page to match the article move. Geometry guy 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars - I can offer help

I haven't editted much recently, but I think I can spare some time to help out. I offer you my help, direct me if it is needed. I can cover the Byzantine (post 330 AD) aspect of the war. Tourskin (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, but I think your edits are more useful in the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars article. I believe the Roman-Persian Wars article does not need further expansion.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ten rules to make an article FA

Hello! I am an italian boy and I am very interested in it.wiki FAs. So I'd like to ask you if I could translate your manual, because in the it.wiki we don't have anyone! Naturally at the end of the translation I will write that you wrote the original manual. Let me know. --Andrea 93 (msg) 14:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, don't worry, you didn't understand...I will translate the manual...if you want, naturally...--Andrea 93 (msg) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok! ;) Thank you very much!--Andrea 93 (msg) 15:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "mononymity"

let me reassure you that a wikipedia burial crew is already preparing a proper funeral for "Category:Mononymous persons." If you would like to contribute your spadeful of soil, the burial ground is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 12. "Category:Mononymity" will soon be consigned to anonymity. Nihil novi (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much about the category, therefore your "reassurances" do not make me feel any better. The only thing I do not want to see in a FA article is useless "seelaso" sections, having nothing to add.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Julian move

Greetings, and forgive me for posting to your talk page. I am only posting here because I wasn't certain whether you were watching the debate on Talk:Julian the Apostate. I would like to request you to read my reply to your objections, and, if you like, and aren't too busy, to reply back. Thanks! Druworos (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Favour

Could you do me a favour? Could you leave a message in Greek at User talk:Peeperman explaining about image licensing? This user has been consistently poor at uploading copyrighted images and has ignored all the warnings. I assume that they are not an english speaker, but unfortunately I can't speak Greek. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond at FAC

It's up to you, Yannismarou. But if you'd rather respond to questions from Casliber and others at FAC, that's fine too; leave a note on my talk page, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Review/support of Ayumi Hamasaki for Featured Article status

Thanks very much for taking the time to review (and support) the Ayumi Hamasaki article as an FA candidate. Much appreciated! The Transmogrifier (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Giorgis

Δυστυχώς δεν προλαβαίνω καθόλου γιατί έπεσε δουλειά. Καλύτερα, πάντως, να απευθυνθείς σε κάποιον που έχει τα αγγλικά ως μητρική του. Αν δεν βρεις κανέναν, ευχαρίστως να βοηθήσω, αλλά από την επόμενη εβδομάδα. Sorry!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ναι, βρε! Δεν είναι κάτι επείγον, σιγά! Είπα μόνο αν έχεις χρόνο! Έχω κάνει κρούσεις και σε native speakers.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		I have been handing out this Barnstar of Recovery to the stars of the Wikipedia:Featured article review. Thanks for all of your work there and keep it up! Marskell (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting Roman-Persian Wars

Well, yes, and congratulations. As I was editing merrily away just now, the FA star appeared. I've never had this experience before, and I doubt that it had much to do with me. I wonder whether I should continue with my editing. Please let me know if you would like me to continue to the end. My best. Finetooth (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulations from me too. I was delighted to see the promotion and all you hard work and skill recogonised. Well deserved! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Special thanks to both of you (and Dank and Casliber) for your copy-editing help and support.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Done. My biggest edits involved revising parts of the lead per suggestions at FAC, and they were all done yesterday before the article reached FA. Thereafter, the edits tended to be minor. I left one very small suggestion on the talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my objections to the changes made in the copy-edit on my talk page.Zburh (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Γιώργης

Sorry, for not responding promptly but my hands are still full... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Giorgos! As far as the article is concerned I asked Casliber to have a look. By the way thank you for the map in Roman-Persian Wars. It was a great addition, and you also helped for the FAC successful result! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Όσο για τα μαιλ και πάλι μου απαντάς όποτε έχεις καιρό. Δεν υπάρχει κάτι επείγον. Και όσο εσύ προφανώς πνίγεσαι, εγώ έκανα τα μπάνια μου! Χι! Χι!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Τέρας!!!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

3rdAlcove and Bryges

Hello my friend.

Listen, I am having some trouble with User:3rdAlcove at the Bryges article.

He insists on ignoring the historical and linguistic evidence that attests to the Bryges having Thracian origins. Moreover, he emphasizes the Bryges being members of the Lusatian culture using extremely limited archaeological evidence.

Though I incorporated 3rdAlcove's contributions, he seems intent to continue reverting my sourced contributions to the article.

I already explained my edits to 3rdAlcove and he continues to engage in POV-pushing (see discussion entitled "Tell me" [1]).

Please do something, because I feel that he will continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Thank you for your time. Deucalionite (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page adelphe. I cannot thank you enough. Take care. Deucalionite (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not thank me! The protection is for a short period of time and with the aim you and 3rdAlcove to work your differences out! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You deserve to be thanked! If not for your intervention, I highly doubt either 3rdAlcove or myself would even think of settling our differences. Deucalionite (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I updated the WPGR showcase again. So far, the Maniots article lost its GA status (so has the Arvanites article) and the Roman-Persian Wars gained FA candidacy. DYK at 166 articles. Deucalionite (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your devotion in maintaining the WPGR showcase.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your thanks. Contributing to the showcase is pretty much the only thing I can do to redeem myself for being such a shitty user. Cheers! Deucalionite (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

roman persian

My friend, I read both of these guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Captions
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Captions

but I couldnt find what you were saying (that the excess use of internal links is prohibited for captions). --Wayiran (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But reader cannot discern the image. at least it has to be a little bigger! I wont persist any more as i see it wastes our time, but really the story can not be seen at all(or its difficult to get it)! If you wanted, then change that image with this one.[2] or make that one a little bigger(260px!)... --Wayiran (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ και συγγνώμη

Ευχαριστώ πολύ Γιάννη για το μήνυμα και παρόλο που το γεγονός ανήκει στο παρελθόν και είναι πια μία (ατυχής) ιστορία, εκτιμώ ιδιαίτερα τη πρόθεσή σου. Είναι καλό να ξέρεις ότι έχεις φίλους που δύνανται νε επέμβουν σε ορισμένες καταστάσεις. Παρ' όλα αυτά με συγχωρείς γι' αυτήν την ενόχληση. Δεν θα σε κουράσω με τις λεπτομέρειες, είναι αλλωστε φανερές από το article history και το talk page και αλλού, αλλά θεώρησα ότι ήταν vandalism και το ανέφερα. Καταλαβαίνεις το σοκ όταν έμαθα ότι με μπλόκαραν και μένα. Η πρώτη μου αντίδραση ήταν να σου στείλω μήνυμα. Παρ' όλη τη φιλία μας, δεν θα ήθελα να σε αναμείξω σε τέτοιες περιστάσεις όσο δύσκολες και να ήταν για μένα. Αλλά εκείνη τη στιγμή, και επειδή δεν είχα τέτοια εμπειρία στο παρελθόν, καλώς η κακώς θεώρησα ότι η ενόχληση που θα σου προκαλούσα ήταν δικαιολογημένη από τις περιστάσεις. Τώρα βλέποντας τα πράγματα πιο καθαρά είμαι ολίγον τι θορυβημένος γι' αυτή την υπερβολική αντίδραση. Αλλά τι να κάνω είναι πιά αργά να διορθώσω την όποια ενόχληση που σου προκάλεσα. Σ' ευχαριστώ και πάλι και εκτιμώ ιδιαίτερα τις ευγενικές σου πρόθέσεις. Με φιλικούς χαιρετισμούς. Τάσος (Dr.K. (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Roman-Persian wars

I have replied to you in full. I will do another draft, which you are of course free to amend; if you revert, dispute resolution and FARC are my only recourses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Khosrau was a much bigger threat than Shapur? Find me a source which says that, please.

Yes, I know you're Greek, nor do I accuse you of writing the abominable text; but you are reverting to the frenzies of semi-literate Iranian nationalism. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see! You are right! Maybe it is better to restore the version on July 27 and discuss the issue.--Larno Man (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean the version that was before the PMAnderson edits!--Larno Man (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no rush! I leave it to you for now and trust on your NPOV! ;)--Larno Man (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then, I will bring back the original version from July 27. --CreazySuit (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Yanni, I agree with you on Shapour...it was PMandersion who put it there, not me. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but If it's cited in article, then why are you re-adding the dubious tag? How is it "dubious", if it's actually cited in the page?--CreazySuit (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That does it; not your fault, of course, but this dishonesty should not be seen as one of our best articles. see WP:Featured article review/Roman–Persian Wars. I will answer reasonable questions, but, as far as I am concerned, this is a test to see whether FA is worth anything at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about 1896 Olympic article

I am working on editing the copy of the article and I had some questions, under the section entitled "Orangization" you talk about a statue being unveiled to honor the contributions of George Averoff. You say this statue was unveiled on April 5 but you don't indicate what year. Do you know the year? 1895 or 1896? Also you describe the stadium as having a straight running track of 232 meters.... Is this the pre or post-renovation description? This part is a little ambiguous and you may want to consider removing unless we can find a full description of the renovations that Averoff commissioned for the stadium. There are brief descriptions under the Wikipedia articles for Averoff and Panathinaiko Stadium but it isn't enough to fully explore the topic. H1nkles (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to wikilink in my talk page. Fortunately, this talk page will never be submitted for FAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, your 4th point in the "please remember to..." section above asks to wikilink specific articles. I'm going to try and do a little research on the stadium and see if I can answer some of my questions. I enjoy your article and writing. I'm a big Olympics fan and I am really interested in keeping this article as a FA so I hope that my meager efforts are of some assistance.H1nkles (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not apologize. My comment was humoristic! And thanks for your help!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oups! You're right! I do not even remember what I'm asking for!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have finished the edits suggested. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know. If further edits related to prose are suggested I will be happy to lend my support. It has been a pleasure to work with you on this article and I sincerely hope that it makes its way out of FARC. H1nkles (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Good suggestion about taking on the 2004 Summer Games. I've put it on my watch list and will begin to work on that one. It definitely needs a lot of work. I'm very unfamiliar with the actual formatting of the pages, and citing works so it will take me a while to get confident with that portion of things. H1nkles (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I noticed today that the 1896 Olympics article has been kept as an FA. Nice working with you on it. H1nkles (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping you could explain how FAR works

Since others weren't helpful, and I'm curious. With the Ronald Reagan FAR (now closed), I realize Sandy said it should be a dispute resolution. If that's true, does that mean that FA articles don't have to be any good, or that if they don't meet criteria for FA that doesn't affect FA status? Does it mean there's some secret reason I haven't heard of? If I'm missing something, can anyone enlighten me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation.

Sweet of you, Γιάννη. I hope you don't have any ulterior motives in mind, though (kill me and ditch me somewhere, for example). 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation II.

Thanks for the invitation. I honored your invitation. Now I have to understand how it works ( he,he) Dkace (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposition

I have a proposition for you about RoM and the EU. In order to have complete and utter neutrality, if someone requests a move for the page, all editors from RoM and all editors from Greece ought not to be involved; that is to say, neither you nor I make any comment. Other Balkanians should not touch it either. Heck, even FP can stay out. It is plainly obvious why the previous requested move seems like a "no consensus". Let's let the healthy people decide. Do we have a deal? BalkanFever 11:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I cannot speak on behalf of the Greek editors. Second, when and if a request is filed for the move of the page, which may happen, I personally want to present my arguments against the move. Participation in the procedure is important for me. Now, whether my vote counts or not is not the main thing (one vote more or less does not radically alter the balance), but I do intend to be there with my arguments. WP has particular procedures, and "rules", defining when there is a consensus and when there isn't. I do not see why general rules shouldn't be applied in this case as well. And after all who is "healthy"? Who determines that? Input by third parties will come and it is always useful, but let's not overrate its importance. In 2008 Macedonian Elections article, non-Greek and non-Macedonian votes were more or less split. Now, I do not think I would agree with excluding all non-Balkans votes. Which is the criterion here, e.g., for excluding Romanians? And the Turks as well? Why? After all, almost all of them have recognized the country as RoM. Why shouldn't we trust their opinion? in general, I never liked rules of exclusions in polls.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know what you will say, and you know what I will say. A discussion full of predictable votes from Greeks and/or ethnic Macedonians puts people off and makes the result look like something it isn't. Maybe those votes just shouldn't be counted, while arguments can be presented. I'd just rather not be called a nationalist by the nationalists who I refute the points of, that's all (that's not referring to you) BalkanFever 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In a strategic maneuver I called first myself a "nationalist" in a completely different context, so I really don't bother much anymore if these nationalists you say call me so or not! I can tell them I was quicker than they were!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The move at FYROM/ROM accession to the EU article

Hi, Yannismarou. I checked back in at the page a minute ago, and saw that it had been moved again, after the first time I did, and that you reverted it, but using cut-and-paste instead of the move button. Please remember to move the page correctly, so the edit history stays with the article. I merged the histories back together, but please remember for the future. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I only just realized that you had left a message in response to my offer to help out in the Roman-Persian war thing. After aug 15th, I should have more free time to assist in Byzantine-Sassanid Wars, although I think it would be best to merge the two and try to get a middle ground. Persian nationalism emerges as an issue now and again, whether it be real or not. Tourskin (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AM

Hey-ho. What do you find weasel-y about the short paragraph, Yanni? I thought it was a nice sum-up that took the varied opinions of the ancients themselves into account (ie integration sometimes is gradual). 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ωχ καλά, αν είναι να βαράς. ;) Basically, I'm not TOO fond of it either but I thought I'd sum the ambiguity/gradual acceptance up in that sentence. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, sorry for brashly changing your wording, however, "nothing but X" means "exactly X" ie you were actually calling the particular user "helpful", while your ("quite right" as I said) comment implied the exact opposite (so "anything but helpful"). Just a small reminder. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of 58.165.203.141

I noticed you blocked 58.165.203.141 indefinitely at [3]. I think you may wish to review this block as IP addresses should almost never be blocked indefinitely as set out at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. In most cases users behind the accounts change (unlike accounts) so indef blocking can cause problems in the longterm, even proxy blocks usually have an expiry such as 5 years. This particular IP has only engaged in disruptive activity once and is registred to an ISP, so I would have given a block of from 24 to 48 hours. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism. I was probably indeed a bit exsessive here.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad I could be of help. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More on Nice

Hi, When you closed the discussion on the Request to Move Nice, you didn't leave any evidence of what the proposal was! Shouldn't that be in there somewhere, for the benefit of future editors looking at the discussion? PamD (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. In most cases it is the editor who proposes the move that presents his case at the top of the discussion. But this was not probably exactly the case here. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for the invitation!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Junta trials (Korydallos)

Hi Yanni, sorry about that but I need your advice regarding DYK for the article. As I understand due to the 5+ days needed for the AFD process I may lose the chance to use it at DYK because by the time AFD closes it would be too late for the article, which would not be fair. Do you have any ideas? Thank you very much. Take care. Tasos. (Dr.K. (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I am not familiar with DYK procedures, but what I can do is make a question here.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Yannis. I received advice to nominate it for DYK anyway and they will consider it even past the deadline. But I am grateful for the way you posed the question at the DYK talk page. I think the nomination of the article for deletion was a rush job that did not afford me the courtesy of expanding the article, despite my explicit request to that effect. Your comments reflected this unfairness and I thank you for your continuing support. Let's see what transpires further. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Cinema of Macedonia"

I've tried moving it to Cinema of the Republic of Macedonia per WP:MOSMAC, but it isn't letting me. Could you look into it? Cheers. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR listing

Law has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about "the continuation of the content dispute issue in the article's talk page". I don't see that anybody except me is trying to engage into discussion in the article's talk page. -- Vision Thing -- 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And you chose the FAR path instead. What a wise decision!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I do regret that you think I'm trying to defeature "Law" article. My impression is that the primary function of FAR is to bring articles that don't satisfy FA criteria up to FA level, and not to defeature them. -- Vision Thing -- 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request for Olympic Games article

I'm wondering if you would be willing to do a peer review of the Olympic Games article. It was at one time a Featured Article but was demoted in January of 2007. You had participated in that FARC discussion [[4]]. I have tried to address as many of the concerns as possible. I have asked the Olympic Project community to review the article as well, but since we worked on the 1896 Olympics article together and you were part of the original critique of this article I thought I would ask you personally to review it. Specifically I need to make sure I am properly citing the works. I don't know if I've done it correctly. I sincerely appreciate any time and effort you can give to this. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it tomorrow or on Monday morning. But I'll definitely review it!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)