User talk:Miskin/Archive 2

Macedonians and Wikipedia

First I have taken the liberty of archiving this page, which was far too large for the comfort of other editors.
You are quite correct that the first priority of Wikipedia articles should be stating the truth rather than not giving offence to other Users. Nevertheless, deliberate provocation should be avoided, and I maintain that putting "Macedonian" in quotes, for example, is a pointless provocation.
I do not claim to be an expert on the history of the southern Balkans. I am aware that the South Slav peoples are all closely related and that the distinctions between them are rather arbitrary. But to Serbs and Croats and Montenegrins and Bulgarians, they are obviously real distinctions. So far as I know the South Slavs living in the region between Skopje and the Aegean have identified themselves as Macedonians since at least the late 19th century. The VMRO was founded, from memory, in 1895. Of course this is a very recent national identity when compared with the Greeks, but that does not make it less real or meaningful to Macedonians. I am aware also that the Macedonian nationality was partly created by Bulgarian and Serbian political intrigue, but by the early 20th century it had become a reality independent of its original sponsors. It is therefore not true, as is commonly asserted in Greece, that a Macedonian nationality was created out of nothing by Tito in 1945.
Greece and the Greek diaspora therefore have to deal with the fact of Macedonian nationality. An obvious analogy is with Palestinian nationality, also a relatively recent creation. Israelis still like to point out that historically there is no such thing as a Palestinian and that in the 19th century Palestine was part of Ottoman Syria etc etc, but that does not alter the present reality of Palestinian nationality and its consequences for Israeli policy.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that Greek nationalist sentiment over Macedonia was whipped up by Greek politicians, particularly during the Papandreou-Mitsotakis period. I don't deny that the Macedonians gave foolish provocations to Greece in the early years of independence under the VMRO, such as using the Star of Vergina and the White Tower as national symbols, but the notion that Greece was threatened by a small, poor, landlocked Balkan statelet was always absurd. Since 1995 Macedonia has been very well behaved and it's time Greece got over it.
I would not place much weight on what the US Congress etc etc have to say. There is a large and wealthy Greek lobby in the US, as there is here in Afstralia, and few in the US or here know or care enough about the Macedonian question to be able to argue with the Greek lobby when it asks for gestures of this kind. The same influence is seen over debate on the Cyprus question, as the Turkish community here frequently complains. (I happen to think the Greeks are in the right over Cyprus, by the way.)
I consider myself a philhellene, I have many Greek friends here in Melvourni, I have travelled in Greece, I speak a little Greek, and I have written extensively at Wikipedia on Greek topics (see the History of Greece series, Art of Ancient Greece, Byzantine art and others). I have repeatedly reverted anti-Greek edits by Macedonian, Albanian (see Epirus) and Turkish nationalist (see Greco-Turkish relations) editors. When you intervened at Vergina, I was opposing User:Macedonia's efforts to portray all of northern Greece as Macedonia Irredenta. But much as I love the Greeks I am under no illusions about irrationalism of Greek romantic nationalism. If it is foolish for the Macedonians to lay claim to Thessaloniki, it is equally foolish for Greeks to pine after Smyrna and Constantinople and Trebizond, as many still do. Parochial nationalism is the curse of the region, and the Greeks, as heirs of a great and cosmopolitan civilisation, should take the lead in overcoming it.

Adam 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Translation

I'm afraid I can't tell you for sure. I am willing to vouch for the following translation: Peace to the universe and peace to the Greeks. Alexander of Macedon of Greece and King of the Greeks. I'm not sure though, so you may want to ask someone who knows Hebrew better than me. User:Ynhockey should be able to give you a better translation - he is a native speaker. Izehar 18:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

I've noticed that you enjoy on reverting blindly and engage in discussions via the 'edit summaries'. If you have something useful to say then say it in the discussion page for a change. My personal opinion on your individual is that you need to get a life, but I'll keep that to myself. Miskin 19:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, you have reverted that page many, many times against many editors. I do not enjoy reverting at all, but when you remove info saying it has no source when plainly it does, and you remove the source too, that is not justified. Please don't do that. You might not like the information or trust the source. Fine. Add information and sources of your own to counter it. And please do not mark removal of information as a minor edit. Jonathunder 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Such reverts are regarded by me as a 'minor', that's my decision. Those "many editors" are part of the same ethnic group which is responsible for POV-pushing, vandalism, and much of the tension that governs those articles. Your behaviour does nothing but add oil to the fire. If you think that it was just me, then check the recent reverts of User:Aldux on the same topic, or just be curious to see what will happen tomorrow (when other people notice it). Once this is out of the article for good, you'll owe me an apology. Miskin 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, I'm a Norwegian-American from Minnesota, I have no ancestors from southeast Europe and no axe to grind here. I am not your enemy, and I really am trying to help things. I don't like to see the constant revert wars on that and related pages. You know, the info you were removing may be completely bogus. To you it is, to other editors from another point of view, it is not. Wikipedia must give both sides. As long as the information was attributed, as it was, if it is a relevant minority view it should be represented, just as sources and information from your point of view should be represented in the article. That is the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Kind regards. Jonathunder 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not NPOV policy. According to your logic, we should include Nazi theories in all ethnic related articles, just to let people know that according to 'some people', they're regarded inferiors. According to others however, they could be regarded superior. That's not how NPOV works, you've got it all wrong. There is an objective truth in 99% of the things, and it's up to us to find it. For the rest of the cases, we just provide all possible scenaria. Concerning the number of your reverts, you're mathematically wrong. Miskin 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at those edits summaries: "your link is a mere tourist page, and does not name any historians supporting the claim--don't include it in that sentence". Remember the last thing I said to you about more and more people reacting to POV-pushing? You owe me an apology. Miskin 02:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts are the only thing that instigates edit-wars and pours oil to the fire. I think there's a great deal of things that you have misinterpreted on how editing works. Everytime someone adds a POV, he's responsible to sourced it in order to make stay on the article. If he fails to do so, it will be removed. Your logic implies that we have to let every unsourced POV on an article, and remove it until we have found a source which proves otherwise. So let me get the straight, if someone edits the White House and claims that George Bush has a vagina, will I have to find explicit sources that state "Attention! George Bush does NOT have a vagine" in order to remove it? Miskin 03:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, you reverted the pages in question many, many times before I got involved, so you cannot fairly say I instigated an edit war. Nor were the deletions I reinstated without a source, so it isn't at all like the stuff about GWB you alude to. I don't claim the stuff you removed is true or necessarily even credible, just that it is a POV the article should have for completeness. I created the article on Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society. It says that he thought the Earth was flat because God says it is. This happens to be a belief I do not share, but it is relevant to the article and it belongs there. You may think some of the ideas some hold about the history of the peoples of southeast Europe are just as unfounded, and you may well be right, but if a large number of people believe them and a government source says them, let Wikipedia report that. Counter it with your facts and your sources, and let the reader judge for herself. Now, goodnight. Jonathunder 04:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman

I am curious as to the reasoning behind adding a link to langue d'oïl on Roman, which is a disambiguation page. There are a lot of "Romance" languages, why did you pick out that one?

I invite you to peruse Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). A dab page, like [[Roman]], is not intended as a compendium of every factoid remotely related to its subject. Rather, it is supposed to be limited to listing articles that specifically address one of several meanings or connotations of an ambiguous term. For example, an editor might use the term Roman in an article to refer to the Roman Empire (there are a lot of those), or the Byzantine Empire if discussing a later period, or someone who lives today in Rome, Italy; but it's not obvious to me that they are likely to use that term to refer to langue d'oïl. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Langue d'oïl is not a disambiguation page. I chose it because it was called Roman by its contemporaries, and it's still oftenly referred to as 'Roman' in French. The Byzantine Empire is hardly ever referred as 'Roman' by anybody, but it's still accurrate to list it in that disambiguation page. I thought similarly about the "Roman" and the "Romaic" languages. In fact it's too likely that a Francophone would look for that, but maybe it needs its separate space, a disambiguation page on the Roman language maybe (which now inaccurrately links to Latin). Miskin 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know that it was referred to as Roman in French, which explains the relevance. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Miskin is mistaken. "Langue romane" in French means a "romance language", not the langue d'oïl in particular. However, that is a French, not an English, usage; in English, "Roman" is only rarely used to mean "Romance" (OED).

As for the Roman Empire, "Eastern Roman Empire" is not only accurate, but a common name for what is also called the "Byzantine Empire", so I agree that it should be listed in the Roman dab page.

I am not sure what "Roman language" would mean other than Latin. Certainly that term is not in current academic use at all (except in phrases like "Ancient Roman language", "Roman language and culture", etc.). In English, the descendents of Latin are called Romance languages, not Roman languages. And others who claim Roman heritage (rightly or wrongly!) have distinctive names, e.g. Romanian, Romany, Romaic. So I'm not sure what else Roman language would refer to than Latin. --Macrakis 17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The very first work of French literature was Chanson de geste, written in langue d'oïl, which was known at the time as "Roman language". The French word for novel became "Roman" for that reason (and stayed like that ever since). Old Frech was not contemporary to the notion of a Romance family of language, it's langue d'oïl that will later inspire scholars to name all medieval, Latin-derived languages as such (Roman). This is also explained in the "Roman" section of the article Medieval French literature, and elsewhere. If you still don't trust me then check the disambiguation page of "Roman" in the French wikipedia:

un roman est une forme de littérature ;
le roman est le premier état du français dégagé du latin.
Roman est un des noms désignant la langue occitane.

As you can see it has a third definition that I didn't know of either. Either way the "Roman language" could mean many things but hardly ever Latin. That's an inaccurrate POV which falls under original research. I've read a book which pretty much deals with why "Latin" was never named to "Roman" and examines all languages that were spoken in Rome. Historically "Roman language" has stood for at least two things (but apparently three):

The langue d'oïl, which lend its name to the Romance languages,
The language of the Byzantine Empire, in its medieval and modern forms. Check any dictionary for results on "Romaic", French "romaique". Miskin 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually older texts in oïl, notably the Serments de Strasbourg, but that's neither here nor there.... --Macrakis 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure of what your point is here. Many things are called "roman", "romane", "romano", etc. at different times and places, including not just languages but also cheese (pecorino romano), architecture (what we call romanesque in English), etc. The question in the redirect is what a modern, English-speaking person might mean by "Roman language". I think that 99% of the time they'd mean Latin. I am not aware of anyone using "Roman language" in English (as opposed to "Romaic language") to mean Greek.

Like I said before, what you "think" that "Roman language" would refer to, falls under POV. Our purpose is to point out the academic view on the subject, nor our own. "Latin" is one thing, and "Roman" is another. If you refuse the disambiguation of "Romance" and "Romaic" under "Roman" (eventhough they're really synonyms), then you should refuse the disambiguation of Byzantine. As your example with the "many things" that were called roman at times, I'm not familiar of any instance where plainl "roman" would stand for "roman cheese" (as opposed to "Roman language"). If you think that the phrase "I'd like some Roman right now" can in some part of the universe imply "I'd like some pecorino romano" then by all means - add it in the article. What I don't understand is why do you have to "drain vinegar from the fly" each time that I make an edit. Miskin 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plain "roman" in English never means Romaic or Romany or Romance, and none of those belong in the dab page. If you want to treat "Roman" and "Romaic" as synonyms, surely "Roman" and "Romano" are also synonyms, and indeed "Romano" by itself does mean a kind of cheese in English (though in Italian you'd normally say "pecorino romano"). By the way, "drain vinegar from a fly" is not an English expression. --Macrakis 21:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the Roman dab page, it should include what a modern, English-speaking person might mean (or confuse with) "Roman". I don't think either oïl or oc belong there, nor for that matter the modern Italian dialect of Rome. And it should certainly not include all the words derived from "Rome", including Romaic, Romany, Romanian, Romanesque, Romance, Romano, Romansch, Aromanian, Romand (Swiss), Romagna, etc., although I suppose these could be included in a "see also" at the bottom (though that isn't really part of the dab page standard).

Like I said... If you think that the disambiguation page of Roman should disambiguate Modern English words with R-O-M-A-N, then we should remove half of the article, including Romance and Romaic. If you think that we should include synonyms of 'Roman' that can be used in one word ("he spoke in Roman"), then Romance and Romaic should stay. If you think that we should include every little thing that can be characterised as Roman, then revert to the old version of the article. Make up your mind and stop wasting my time. Miskin 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not characterize edits of yours that I find mistaken as "wastes of time", and I would appreciate it if you did not characterize mine (even when you think they are mistaken) as "wastes of time". --Macrakis 21:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the words romanus and romanicus is very interesting. I have in front of me Les langues romanes by Charles Campoux which summarizes it. An interesting tidbit: "Il ya eut un moment où latine loqui dut signifier exclusivement parler en bonne langue tandis que romane loqui signifiait simplement parler en langue vulgaire."But again, all that is neither here nor there. This is an English-language encyclopedia and dab pages should cover English-language ambiguities. --Macrakis 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then do whatever you want. Miskin 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, someone has massacred that page and removed the Byzantine Empire and other important disambiguation terms. Miskin 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Μακράκη αγόρι μου, σου είπα κάνε ό,τι θες, μόνο μη με κουράζεις άλλο με αυτό το θέμα να χαρείς. Miskin 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Κόψε συ τα ζόρικα, και θα κουραζόμαστε λιγότερα και οι δύο. --Macrakis 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman and edit summaries

"Nice try" isn't a helpful edit summary. Please review civility, and next time you disagree with a major edit, leave your comments on the article's talk page instead. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have to engage in discussion before making such large edits. You just massacred the entire article with no reason or cause. I totally disagree but I won't waste my time. Good luck with the approaching edit-war. Miskin

Another editor listed Roman on Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. That was the reason for my edits. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek langauge

Miskin, just a note to congratulate you on your Greek language series. Excellent work, sas makarizdo. I have to say, though, that although your English is much better than my Greek, it is not, shall we say, amemptos. If you have no objection, I might do a light copyedit on the articles when I get time. Adam 06:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message about my block

Hello, Miskin, thank you for your message. When you claim I blocked an editor I was having a "personal content dispute" with, you may not realize what a serious accusation that is. You might like to tell me what you base it on. I have very little knowledge of linguistics, none of Bulgarian, and precious little interest in either. I've never edited Bulgarian language. Admins aren't supposed to block anybody they have content issues with, and I never have. I was asked to look at the dispute precisely as an uninvolved admin, and when I had looked at it, I decided to warn VMORO on the talkpage; not for anything to do with content, but for disruption and edit warring. These are blocking matters. I don't quite understand why you bring up the 3RR. He didn't violate it, I didn't warn him about it, and I didn't block him for it.

That was a very rude edit summary you linked to. I wouldn't say it "went unnoticed", though: you noticed it. If you see something like that, and care about upholding civility on this cite—which is the responsibility of all users, not just admins, who I'm sure you understand can't be everywhere—your best recourse is to ask an uninvolved admin to evaluate the situation, or alternatively to open an RFC on the user.

I certainly do not warn VMORO not to edit the article again, directly or indirectly. On the contrary, my warning against specific actions—further breaches of civility, etc—indirectly assumes that he will edit it again. If he continues the behavior for which I've blocked him once, I do indeed have a right to block him again without further warning, especially since the block message of mine that you object to contains an explicit warning that this is what will happen. With all due respect, you seem to see things in my message which aren't there. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgariki Mionotita stin Elladha

Ela Miskin. Ehis dhi afti tin istoselidha[1]? Ine alithia oti iparhi Vulgariki mionotita stin Elladha? Ego proti fora to akuo! Rex^(talk) 16:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re sy, den exeis katalabei akoma ti ginetai? H Slabofoni meionotita stin Ellada theoroutan anekathen apo Ellines kai Boulgarous os Boulgariki. Molis to 1991 emathan oi Ellines gia tin yparksi Slavomakedonikou ethnous. Oi Boulgaroi theoroun akoma pos auti i Slavofoni meionota, opos kai olo to Slavomakedoniko ethnos, einai stin pragmatikotita ethnika Boulgaroi. H Ellada stis arxes tou aiona katapieze tous Slavofonous epeidi tous theorouse Boulgarous. I Boulgaria itan exthriki xora kai mia Boulgariki meionotita stin Ellada apotelouse enan kalo logo gia eisboli. H eisboli telika egine ston deutero Balkaniko, meta ton opoio oi perissoteroi Slabofonoi efygan gia ti Boulgaria. Osoi emeinan mexri ton emfylio, apoktisan mia diavoretiki ethniki tautotita, tin "Slabomakedoniki". Ston emfylio polemo, itan oi Bassilikoi pou katapiezan tis meionotites, kai oxi o Ellinikos plithismos os synolo. Oi kommounistes polemousan mazi me tous Albanous, kai itan o basikos logos gia ton opoion i Boreia Hpeiros dothike telika stin Albania. H epithesi stous Albanous tis Tsamourias egine apo autous tous akrodeksious pou molis eixan anebei stin eksousia. Ston deutoro pagkosmio oi Tsamoi eixan synergastei me ton Axona, kati pou den arese se kanenan lao ekeini tin epoxi. Alitheia, de mou eipes pos kai milas Ellinika? Miskin 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:AlexanderIII.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexanderIII.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Sherool (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You've indicated that you were ready. I've started it.--Paraphelion 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedon

Hi. I'd like to let you know that you are right about the "region" detail in the top of the article Macedon. I tried to let other editors know but they wouldn't listen.

Ya, vlepo ehis provlimata me tus Vulgaroskopianus. Ean thelis tipota pes' mu. Latinus 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euxaristo, alla exo prosorina stamatisei na asxoloumai me auto to thema giati einai xasimo xronou. Miskin 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afu den thelun na katalavun - i propaganda tus ehi klisi ta matia. Na xeris omos oti pandu etsi ine. Ehi erthi ena turkiko koritsaki (akoma sto sholio ine) ke mas ehi kani mavri ti zoi sta Turkic peoples, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ke Turkish Cypriot. I Inanna, i opoia tropopii ta arthra sinithos os IP (ya na glitoni to 3RR) ta ehi yemisi Turkiki propaganda. Sto Comparative military ranks of World War II ehume ke enan Roso (pou ehi polla onomata) User:Tt1, User:Nixer, User:Alexr23, User:Roitr klp pu prospathi na dixi ton Stalin os imitheo. Pes mu ligo, yati bori na kano lathos: ti simea ihame kata ti diarkia to defteru pagosmiu polemu, afti i afti. Ego nomizo i defteri - i proti itan i simea tu dimosiu, tis kivernisis, tu vasilia eno i ethniki itan i defteri. Latinus 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To sygkekrimeno thema me tous skopianous einai pragmatika xasimo xronou. Oi anthropoi einai teleios agrammatoi. Oso gia ti simaia, ki ego ti deuteri tha dialega. An thes na me voithiseis pantos, rixne pou kai pou mia matia stous Arvanites opou kati zoa prospathoun na tous perasoun os taxa Albaniki meionotita tis Ellados. Miskin 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ne, tha to kitazo. Ehis dhi ti selidha hristi tu User:Macedonia, pu lei oti theli mia "Enomeni Makedonia" (i opia perilamvani ke ti Thessaloniki mas). Duo lexis tha po: "land claims". Latinus 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, boris na kitaxis ligo to Talk:Macedonia (sto telos). Efharisto. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To eida alla den katalaba akribos peri tinos prokeitai. Poios einai o synomilitis sou? Miskin 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enas bulgaro-skopianos pu theli na mas anixi ta matia ke na mas dixi pos mono Dimokratia Makedonias prepi na leme ti hora tu. Den ehi simasia, afu den akune - pistevun oti katagonde apo tus Archeus Makedones ke otan tus thimizis ti ipe o Gligorov (imaste Slavi, den ehume kamia shesi me tus Archeus Makedones) tsandozonde. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min tous parneis sta sovara. As' tous na lene o,ti theloun, arkei na min ta bazoun stin egkyclopaidia. Auto pou metraei einai kratame ta psemmata tous exo ap'ta arthra. Miskin 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mya Hari

Boris na mu kanis mya hari: na prosehis to Macedonia (Greece). Ehi erthi enas vulgaroskopyanos ke vazi mya tabela sinehia. Na ti vgazis ke an to vali tesseris fores, na zitisume na tu valun fraghi ya to 3RR. TI tha kanume me aftus tus ethnikistes? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kseris, eho mia ipospsia pos enas diahiristis ehi provlima me tus ellines, ta tesera teleftea grammata tu onomatos tu ine nder. Kseris pion leo? Se ena arthro enas ellinas ke enas skopianos ke i dio xeperasan to 3RR ke aftos evale frayi mono ston ellina! Eprepe na pao to thema sto WP:AN3 ya na to dun alli diahiristes ke tote apofasise na tu vani frayi. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

geia xara

kalispera. sorry gia tin enoxlisi. Kapoios skopianos anakalypse tropo na etymologisei ti leksi makedonia apo ta slavika kai to egrapse sti sizitisi tou macedonia (region). Den pisteuo na grafoun aytes oi vlakeies sti selida? apo poion eksartate?--Makedonas 19:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ba, vlakies ine.De the boresi na ta vali sti selida epidi ine original research. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O Latinus exei dikio. Min se aposxolei katholou auto, aston na leei oti thelei sto talk, an paei na to grapsei tha tou to bgaloun oi admins. Prepei en to metaksi na min tous afisoume na vgaloun tin Othomaniki dimographia apo tin Elliniki makedonia. An sinexisoun tha fonakso admin. Miskin 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ο Νταμπ έχει δυσκολίες αυτόν τον καιρό. Θα το πάω το θέμα στην ΑρμπΚομ μάλλον. talk to +MATIA 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya na xeklidosun mia selida, prepi na to zitisis sto WP:RPP. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Δεν έχει νόημα φίλε να ξεκλειδώσει, αυτό το πράγμα έχει τραβήξει τόσους μήνες. Θέλω να τελειώνει αυτή η ιστορία με τους Αρβανίτες. Σε ένα σωρό άρθρα έχω βοηθήσει με πηγές, αυτό δε μου 'χει ξανατύχει. talk to +MATIA 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Πας στοίχημα; Συνέχεια συμβαίνει. Κοίτα τα revision histories των παρακάτω:

Bosnians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
History of Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferhadija mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Πρέπει να βρεθεί λύση, επειδή έτσι το βλέπω το μέλλον εδώ. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatika auto to zitima me tous arvanites exei katantisei aidia. Eimai poly apasxolimenos auton ton kairo ki exo periorismeno xrono na afieroso stin wikipedia, gi auto den exo dosei epektasi. O monos logos pou pernaei autos o vandalismos aparatiritos einai i asxetosini ton ksenon epi tou thematos. Min koloneis Matia, tha to traviksoume oso den paei, mexri na to katapioun kai na to xonepsoun. Miskin 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanites

I am sorry Miskin, I do not have the energy to meddle with a new dispute. The Rajput one has bled my energy, and I will only be making minor edits for some time, and then maybe take up a new pet project, but I really don't feel like confronting pov warriors right now. dab (ᛏ) 09:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I'm gonna do anything possible to end this. talk to +MATIA 12:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request

Please see Talk:Arvanites if you can. talk to +MATIA 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, could I ask you, in the interest of conflict resolution, to adopt a somewhat more constructive stance on the Talk:Arvanites discussion? Instead of repeating personal bickering over past behaviour of other contributors, and asking them to leave the article, it would be more helpful if for instance you could just comment on specific points of the consensus draft. I don't think simply reverting to an older version of the article is currently a realistic option (and which version do you have in mind?), and Zogu, of all the Albanian contributors, has really been making a serious attempt at constructive collaboration. Trying to bite him away is bad. This is Wikipedia, nobody owns this article, and as long as Albanian contributors do have opinions about Arvanites (and they have every right to), they will be contributing. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin please read carefully Lukas' draft and comment it. Avoid "contact" with editors who are trying to take the discussion away from the topic. Lukas I think a certain editor who we both no, had brought a specialised book on a topic, yet his source was ignored for good reasons. So I have to disagree with you about their "contructive collaboration" strongly. How do they have "every right to have an opinion"? WP:RS? talk to +MATIA 13:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that helsinki and unesco are reliable sources :). Matia you repeat that policy again and again, but you do not follow it yourself. Half the tings in your version were without source and reliable sources (unesco and helsini) were ignored. Wikipedia is not a playground for greek propaganda any more than it is for any other propaganda (includ albanian). I have given reliable sources and so I have every right to promote what they say. The fact that you not agree with what they say not mean nothing. Zogu 13:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lukas for volunteering as a mediator. You pointed out that Albanian editors are making an effort to resolve the dispute. Maybe you need to have another look at the locked version of the article which states all Arvanites as an ethnic Albanian minority. After such extreme POV-pushing, I've been having difficulties to not generalize those Albanian editors as Balkan nationalists. The truth is that I currently have very limited time to spend on wikipedia. As soon as I manage to find some more, I'll make a more efficient contribution to the dispute. To me what has to happen is clear, but I haven't made a good effort to trasmit it. In a nutshell, Zogu's constant claims on the Arvanitic language belong to a different article, and I regard it a waste of time and space every time he posts them in Arvanites. Secondly, we must all realize that the Helsinki report is not the "Bible" of ethnology, and we can't use one single source to back up such extreme claims. The only argument of Zogu's which is in place, is the present existence of an Alvanite people (supposedly in Epirus) which recognizes itself as ethnic Albanian. If that's really the case, like the Helsinki report implies, then we have to state it in the article. To my knowledge and life experience, such group of people doesn't presently exist, yet I need to find a credible source to demonstrate it. It must be pointed out that Muslim Albanians and Albanian Chams are not Arvanites, and therefore have nothing to do with the article. Once this is done, I think you would agree that all references of "Albanian ethnic" minority should be removed. Miskin 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there's something I need to have explained. Assuming that Arvanitic is indeed a dialect of Albanian, what are the criteria for an Albanophone in Greece to be labeled as 'Arvanite' or just 'ethnic Albanian', or even 'tourist Albanian'? That's a very crucial point that the Helsinki article doesn't specify. In a way it does, but then it contradicts itself. It says that those Albanophones [the Arvanites] felt Greek and took offence in being called Albanians, thus they preferred to call themselves 'Arvanites'. That implies that "Arvanites" are the Albanophones of Greece who recognize themselves as such. However in the opening paragraph, it says that some Arvanites in Epirus call themselves the same way like the Albanians [hence they don't call themselves 'Arvanites'], and feel ethnically Albanian. This to me, is a contradiction. Since those people don't recognize themselves as 'Arvanites', then that means they're not Arvanites, therefore the report erroneously regards them as such. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Miskin 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed that contradiction (while on that ArbCom case) and I've noticed one or two cases where the H report might misinterpret the sources - but perhaps they were human mistakes not done on purpose... or perhaps that report was written in a hurry - in greek we would say: at foot ;) talk to +MATIA 18:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't immediately see your comments here. About your question: The most solid information that we have to date is that these people (if they exist) call their language "Shqip", in their language. We have claims in the Helsinki papaer, though otherwise unsubstantiated, that they "are regarded" (by some, but who?) as ethnic Albanians. That still leaves open several possibilities that would require their treatment here. Please compare the list of questions I once formulated on the old talk page:

They might be only calling their language "Shqip", but themselves Arvanites.
They might be calling themselves "Shqiptar" in their Arvanitic, but "Arvanites" in their Greek.
They might be regarded by their Greek fellow country people as Arvanites.
They might consider themselves as members of the same group as the southern Arvanites, independently of how they call that group.

In any case, we need to deal with these guys in some way, even if it was only to make clear to the reader that we are not dealing with them! As long as nobody has actually got access to that Banfi source, we should keep it short and neutral.

As for the language, I still think we need some reference to the "Albanianness" of it; otherwise the unsuspecting reader simply won't know who we're talking about and why we're making all the fuss about their ethnic character. Ceterum censeo the Arvanitic language article needs to be changed too. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it at foot, but I would guess that they just didn't care too much to make a distinction between Arvanites and ethnic Albanians, something which the Albanian editors here are trying to exploit. Miskin 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Αρναούτηδες

Δες σε παρακαλώ τα άρθρα για τα αρβανίτικα και τα αλβανικά. Έχουν άμεση σχέση με τη συζήτηση για τους Αρβανίτες.--Theathenae 12:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lypamai alla den exo oute ti gnosi oute tis piges gia na amfisvitiso auta pou legontai pano stin Arvanitiki glossa. Gnorizo kala pos oi Arvanites den tin theoroun Albaniki dialekto, omos oi perissoteres piges tin xaraktirizoun kata auton ton tropo. Prepei na vrethoun Arvanitikes piges pou na tin diaforopoioun, etsi isos kataferoume na tin xaraktirisoume os diaforetiki glossa gia politikous logous (vlepe Servika/Croatika, Skopianika/Boulgarika). Miskin 12:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sxetika me istoria kai to ti einai oi Arvanites, bres to biblio pou egrapse o Biris. talk to +MATIA 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De nomizo pos auti i apopsi einai kati pou prepei na mpei stin kefali tou arthrou. Asxeta me ton an isxyei i oxi, nomizo pos einai kati pou mporei na parermineutei eukola, legontas px pos to Despotato tis Hpeirou itan Albaniko kratos. Yparxoun idi anoixtes diamaxes sto thema 'Hpeiros' me tous Albanous, an grafoume kai tetoia tha tous dinoume aera. Ti les pano se auto? Miskin 15:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC) YS: An prosekses stin diki mou ekdosi autin ti theoria ti metakinisa se allo meros tou arthrou. Miskin 15:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

Γειά, μπορείς να φτιάξεις κάτι στο Macedonians (ethnic group); Σε αυτό το POV που βάζει συνέχεια αυτός να αλλάξεις το Pirin Macedonia με Blagoevgrad Province και το Aegean Macedonia με Greek Macedonia. Δε βλέπω λόγο να χρησιμοποιούμε τη δική τους ορολογία και όχι την επίσημη ονομασία. Θα το έκανα εγώ αλλά υπάρχουν επιπλοκές. Τον έχω καρφώσει (και δε ντρέπομαι ;-)) που το έχει ήδη παραβιάσει αυτός, γι' αυτό αν θες, περίμενε λίγο να του βάλουν φραγή και μετά άλλαξέ το. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ή, αν θες, βγάλ' το όλο. Ξέρεις τι κάνει; Προπαγάνδα για εκείνες τις διεκδικήσεις της Μακεδονίας. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exeis dikio den yparxei logos na xrisimopoioume tis orologies tous. Tha kano auto pou mou eipes kai an epimeinei tha to vgalo teleios. Miskin 14:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To vgalan alloi, den pirazi. Prosthesa kati [2]. Prosexe min to vgalun :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des afto

Portal:Macedonia. Den ine dikeo - i Kinezi ehun Portal:People's Republic of China ohi Portal:China! --Latinus 14:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, an ine na to metonomasis, tha prepi na metonomasis analogos ke ta parakato:

--Latinus 14:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter with you? I mean, did you came out of a jungle or smt.? Or swamp? And you decide to move arbitrarily Portal Macedonia to Portal R. of Macedonia? Discuss first.

And you can write about Greek Macedonia in Portal:Greece BTW. Bomac 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ithela na do ti eidous antidraseis tha yparksoun. Opos blepeis den epiase topo i metonomasia, alla i apopeira kai mono tous etsoukse. Opoios ehei ti myga mygiazetai. Miskin 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomac must have mistook me for one of his compatriots. Yep, the 19th century is thriving in the Balkans. Miskin 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kseris, i duo Bulgarii xristes diafonun me to pos to onomasan, ke protinan na metakinithi sto portal Dimokratia Makedonias. --Latinus 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

I filed a request for arbitration for the naming conventions of the Macedonia related articles: Wikipedia:RFAR#Macedonia_naming_dispute. I have listed you as a party involved. Bitola 14:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered. Miskin 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"idiom"

Apparently 'idiom' is english terminology [3]. Miskin 15:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, not as a technical term in linguistics, and certainly not in a sense contrasting with "dialect" in the way you are using it ("dialect"=major division; "idiom"=minor division). That distinction is made only in Greek. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

I don't see much hope for User:Macedonia becoming a constructive Wikipedian, he appears entirely shut in in nationalism. So I don't expect time discussing with him will be very well invested. That said, I see no reason why the Vergina Sun flag should not appear under "History" in the R. of M. article, as the historical flag in use 1991 to 1995. regards, dab (ᛏ) 09:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, in Macedonians (ethnic group), you recently removed the paragraph starting "The Vergina Sun is occasionally used to represent the Macedonian people by the diaspora through associations and cultural groups...." with the edit comment "It was official UN decision for FYROM to drop claims on the Vergina sun, therefore it has no place in the article." This seems like a non-sequitur. Whether the Republic of Macedonia does or should use the VS officially is one thing; whether diaspora Slav Macedonians in fact use it is another. Even if it were somehow illegal for Slav Macedonians to use the VS in their organizations (which of course would be a flagrant violation of their freedom of expression), the issue for WP is whether they do or not. --Macrakis 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deal on the VS is already analysed in Republic of Macedonia. I don't see why should wikipedia be repetitive on that point, especially when the only motive is the nationalist insecurities of User:Macedonia. Miskin 08:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

portal:Macedonia

This portal name, insults all Macedonians in Greece, and makes problem bigger. STOP FYROM's PROPAGANDA IN WIKIPEDIA.--Makedonas 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing insultive in it. Makedonia is a region in Greece, and that's it. There is nothing written in the portal about this region. Bomac 11:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Macedonia. --Latinus 12:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scanderbeg

Greetings. Please see Encyclopedia Britannica: SCANDERBEG, or ISKENDER BEY (1403-1467), known also as the Dragon of Albania, the national hero of the Albanians, was the son of John (Giovanni) Castriota, lord of Kroia and of the Mirdite country in northern Albania, and of a Servian princess named Vaisava. Doesn't this support your previous claim? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at [4] and look for other similiar searches - isn't that sufficient to source what you said previously? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [this http://news.suc.org/bydate/2004/April_26/20.html Serbian Unity Congress] and Monarchen des alten Serbien (tell me if you need translation from German).

This conglomerate of Slavo-Albanian culture: РАСТКО - СКАДАР RASTKO - SHKODЁR is a vast website containing everything on Skadar and the history of surrounding Albanian, Serbian & other peoples. It's only in Albanian and Serbian, so tell me when you need translation. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. I once tried to put it in the article by I was attacked by 10 different people. There was one more moderate Albanian editor who admitted it in the Talk page. If you put it there I'll support you, Albanians need to realise that this kind of behaviour is 200 years behind modern standards. Miskin 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaritis a non-person?

You may have not heard of him but he's a cult-figure for others. See article. Anyway, sorry for being a bit patronizing. Come over back to my User talk page where there's stuff on its way on the likes of Ionesco. Apostolos Margaritis 16:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitola article

I really don't see a reason for edit war. I agree that the greek naming (Monastiri) is relevant, as well as the Turkish, Serbian, Bulgaria (not to forget that Bitola was once part of Serbia, Turkey, Bulgaria...), but that is why I created theother names section. Please, don't follow me and make a problem of everything I do. Bitola 17:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice by well-established wikipedias (as in e.g. Britannica) to mention the names of a city in various languages, depending on its importance of course. For example "Monastiri" is used in every modern historical textbook in order to refer to the history of the town prior to 1913, no neutral historian will say "Bitola during the Balkan wars...", due to the simple fact that "Monastir" was the name of the Ottoman administration. Imagine someone who reads about Monastiri in the Balkan wars, and wishes to look it up in wikipedia, he won't find it, and when he does, he won't know whether it's the rights place. I assume that the name in Bulgarian is the same as in Macedonian Slavic, so no need to argue on this. The Ottoman administration used the Byzantine Greek name "Monastiri" for 400 years, so whether you like it or not it has to be mentioned. My question is, why are you hiding the fact that "Bitola" is the translation of the Greek "Monastiri"? Are you afraid that it will ruin the little propaganda scenario of bad Greeks conquering poor Macedonian Slavs and changing their toponyms? It probably will, but facts are facts. You can fool some people some times, but you can't fool all the people all the times. Miskin 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks

Eida oti afaireses ola ta peritta apo to talk page Greeks.kai kala ekanes,giati eixe paratravixei me ta edit tis user pou apantises.skeftomai na kanw kapoia edits sxetika me ta link pou exw cited ekei.alla den xerw kata poso tha parameinoun i an kapoios tha ta apomakrunei amesws...An se endiaferei to zitima,kathe sumvouli einai kalodexoumeni.--Hectorian 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merikoi anthropoi fainetai nomizoun pos i wikipedia einai forum. Den gnorizo gia poio thema milas, tha psakso ta links pou les kai tha sou po. Miskin 17:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min kourazese sou dinw to link [[5]].btw,to Monastiri itan tmima tis macedonias [[6]].--Hectorian 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monastiri

Ti tha ton kanume ton Monastiri - kane mu mia hari, karfose ton ya to 3RR an to xanaalaxi. Tonise ke oti en meri epanafores ishiun ke oti esvise to Elliniko onoma ap' tin proti paragrafo 4 fores klp. Ponira kolpa den pyanun... --Latinus 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afise ton pros to paron. An prokalesei ki allo tha ton anafero. Kala kaneis kai me ypostirizeis, den prepei na afinoume na pernaei etsi i malakia tou kathenos. Miskin 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want, Miskin? What part of my section about the name is not correct? You KNOW that the town was founded by the Slavs in the VI century, what Byzantine Greeks you are mentioning? These facts are not mine, you can check, for example, Columbia Encyclopedia: [7], or Encyclopedia Britannica: [8]. If you are trying to say that the name used by Turks has Greek origin, then we have no problem, because I LEFT that in the section! I really don’t know why you are making trouble of everything. Please, we are reasonable people and we should act reasonably. Bitola 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know who the Byzantine Greeks were, then I don't think you're in position to edit articles of any historical content whatsoever. Please cite a credible (neutral) source which backs up your views, otherwise don't revert again. You have already broken 3RR and if you continue with this poor contribution, I'm gonna have to report you for it. Miskin 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is required on your claim of "slavs founding the city". Those articles you linked actually back up my view on providing the name of the town in other languages. I want you to give me a valid, rational reason, as to what displeases you in the section that I just compiled. Miskin 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are arguing for two things: the first one is your insisting that the old Slavic word Obitel is a direct translation from Greek word. I found two different meaning for the word, the first one tells that it means a monastery, monastery place or monastery settlement and the second one tells that it means a family or house, an area of living. Just to add the the Serbian word for family is Obitelj (I’m not sure for the other Slavic languages as Russian and Bulgarian) In any case, you should notice that this word is not directly derived from the Greek word Monastery (Obitel and Monastery as words have completely different structures). The second problem is that you are removing my citations of Guillermo and Idrisi travellers. I found these citations in several different written books I have about my town and I believe that they are relevant enough. To conclude, I really want to stop this edit war and I think we are really near to reaching an agreement about the article, so I’m open for your suggestions, I believe at the end we will find a solution. Bitola 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations only prove that Obitel was in use during the miggle ages. This is something that nobody denied, hence there's no reason to point it out. I just thought they served at nothing. Secondly, you must realise that the Slavs were Christianised by the Greeks. Monastiri was completely Greek and Christian long before the Slavs settled in the region. It's not possible for Monastiri and Bitola to be two words of the same definition, only by plain concidence. I've got Byzantine maps that mark Monastiri within the region of Macedonia II. Your edits were trying to imply that the region had never anything to do with Greeks, which is plainly silly. I never said that Obitel derives from Monastery, (blatantly), I said it was it's direct translation. You must admit that the Greek name of the city was in official use until 1913. The slavic name had always been in use among slavic peoples, which is something that I pointed out already. Hence I don't see the need to cite any sources. Miskin 16:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in every source I found so far is written that the town was settled by Slavs, nobody is mentioning the Byzantium Greeks foundation of the town:[9], so the town cannot be completely Greek and Christian before Slavs settled in the region. I don’t deny that the name Monastiri was official until 1913 and I already left in the article that Turks adopted the name Monastiri as a Greek word. Bitola 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenical Patriarch

You are probably right about it being Turkish law. But it remains 'nonsense' because he is recogised as such by up to 7 million Greek Orthodox people around the world (including ethnic Greeks, Arabs, Ethiopeans, western converts, etc.). He is recognised as such by the governments of the counties he has visited, and by the mainstream Christian churches. Perhaps this is a recent Turkish law. It is 'racist' because it denies that one can be a Greek Orthodox and not necessarily an ethnic Greek. (I obviously mean all this about the law, not the messenger :-)) Perhaps it might make it clearer to dig out that Turkish law and counterbalance it with the fact that he was recognised as ecumenical by Ataturk and the new Turkish state (I think). Politis 13:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term Greek Orthodox is hardly used anymore for non-ethnic Greeks of the Orthodox faith. An Egyptian Copt would be called 'Greek Orthodox' because he's the religious subject of a Greek Orthodox Church (the one of Alexandria). A Russian Orthodox or any Russian national, subject to Russian Orthodoxy, would not be called Greek Orthodox. Furthermore this law (which is historically inherited by the Ottoman administrative system) doesn't forbid a citizen of non-Greek origin to be a follower of the Orthodox faith, it just forbids him to be the patriarch of Constantinople and the other autocephalus Greek Orthodox churches. Miskin 13:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be viewed as an extremity, but it doesn't mean that it's not factual. The entire peninsula of Mt Athos for instance prohibits entrace to women. That's probably an even greater extremity, but it's a also a reality. Greek Orthodoxy does preserve ancient traditions like the above, and I don't see why it should be hidden from public opinion. Miskin 13:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it should not be hidden and you are right to point it out. Do we know when that law was passed in Ankara. I will email a friend who knows about these things. Politis 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox

Hi, as it stands "Greek Orthodox Church" is a disambiguation page. --Deville (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Philhellen" = "Greek Patriot"

Hi Miskin. I saw your effort to respond to Septentrionalis in Talk:Greeks#Alexander the Great and thought I should throw in a little more data on the matter. For your reference, I have also added this information to Philhellenism so you can quickeasily direct there anyone else who thinks he is smart. ;-) NikoSilver 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraklisis

File, eimai Ellinas (opos kai esi fisika) kai xriazomai afti tin stigmi ti politimotati voithia sou.

1.Stin Elliniki wiki kai sigekrimena, sto arthro: Makedonas, pou einai sxedon olo, diki mou dimiourgia kai tora iparxi ipopsifiotita gia diagrafi tou arthrou stin selida [[10]]

Se parakalo para poli, ean thelis vevea kai exis tin kalosini, na psifisis gia tin paramoni kai mi diagrafi tou arthrou. Sigekrimena stin selida [[11]] na psifisis os exis:

διατήρηση και να μπει το πρότυπο {{disputed}}. ας αφήσουμε όποιον θέλει να το προχωρήσει. --Onoma

Diladi diatirisi, ... kai to onoma sou, opos parapano!

2.Stin Germaniki wiki kai sigekrimena, sto arthro: Elliniki (Proto-Elliniki) Glossa, pou einai olo, diki mou dimiourgia kai tora iparxi ipopsifiotita gia diagrafi tou arthrou stin selida 21.Hellenische Sprachen

Se parakalo para poli, ean thelis vevea kai exis tin kalosini, na psifisis gia tin paramoni kai mi diagrafi tou arthrou. Sigekrimena stin selida 21.Hellenische Sprachenna psifisis os exis:

Natürlich behalten --Onoma

Diladi , fisika diatirisi (=Natürlich 'behalten) kai to onoma sou, opos parapano!

Y.G. Ean thelis, mporis na metavivasis tin paraklisi mou, se alous filous kai empistous Ellines opos kai esi?

Parakalo pliri exemithia kai mistikotita! (Apefthinsou mono se poli empista atoma.) Efxxaristo! --Kamikazi2 13:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai ta dyo ta links pou mou edoses einai kena, alla kai na min itane, den tha mporousa na se voithiso epeidi den exo onoma xristi oute stin elliniki oute sti germaniki wikipedia. Miskin 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting source on the Ethnicity of present-day Slav-Macedonians

Hi, I don't know if you can read Slav-Macedonian, but there is a Macedonian source - a contemporary historian from Skopje - his name is Mikulchich (Mikulchik, Mikulčić, Микулчич, Микулчић, Микулчиќ), who has made archeological excavations in the Republic of Macedonia and he claims that the land of modern day Macedonian republic has been completely deserted in the 4-6th century with no population at all for more than two centuries, and the first settlers were not the Slavs, but Asian tribes (Bulgarians claim that they were Bulgarian), and the Slavs joined later, so there is absolutely no chance for the Slavs mixing with the indigenous population and inheriting its name. I can provide you with link. --Komitata 14:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but as I haven't had a first-hand contact with the source, I'm not in position to bring it forth as evidence. Miskin 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed (sorry for intruding). Miskin, what's wrong with you? The guy is an obvious newbee (welcome) ;-). You are experienced. Kindly bring it forth for the rest of us who are rusty in Slavonic. I am sure Komitata agrees. I'll welcome him in his talk page and message him. NikoSilver 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Niko(kira). Try to read this text Μικρή σημείωση για μια κομμένη γλώσσα Apostolos Margaritis 10:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 10:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 10:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And ruminate it WELL Apostolos Margaritis 10:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 10:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 10:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not live up (to) the bad reputation of the Greeks

That is to say: please stop being cunning, tricky, sly and to put it bluntly: stop distorting the truth.

And please do not quote me 'creatively': do not put words in my mouth that I never said. I don't remember saying suff like "poor Muslims were forced back to Turkey". Far from me being an anti-hellen but let me be clear: I'm not a deluded philhellene crank either or some sort of apologet of bad Greek behaviour. Katalavenis; Apostolos Margaritis 10:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graeco-Armenian

intersting, can you quote some references for that? I do assume that any linguist arguing in favour of Graeco-Armenian will also include Phrygian and Macedonian in the group, but I'm not so sure about Thracian or Illyrian. dab (ᛏ) 16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 1:9

Can you have a quick look at this, in terms of the Koine Greek, I have found out a bit about the various texts, but the difference εγεννησεν instead of εγεννησε means nothing to me. Unfortunately I have little Latin and less Greek, and no access to a university level library. Rich Farmbrough 16:42 15 March 2006 (UTC).

If you read through the text you'll find out that all 3rd sing. person aorist tense verbs are written with a final 'n' (e.g. ἐπάταξεν, ἐβασίλευσεν, ἐκράτησεν). I can't find εγεννησεν however, but I assume that you're referring to some of all of the above. The specific text is written in a purely vernacular and unstandardised language by a Hellenised Jew. Its grammar is different to both literary Attic and even other contemporary texts of Koine (as it was never standardised). It is impossible to find general grammar rules specific to a random Koine text. Yet, it means the same thing, you can just ignore the final 'n'. Miskin 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physika kai milaw ta Romaiika!:)prosexw idi ta arthra pou eipes kai tha kanw o,ti mporw gia na min afisw tous skopianous na perasoun ta dika tous!tha einai kalo an kaneis afto pou les ti deftera,kai na eisai sigouros oti tha voithisw kata to dunaton.tha psaxw ws tote na vrw ki egw kati sxetiko sto internet.pera apo afto omws,tha prepei na stirixoume kai to arthro gia emas,giati ap'oti vlepw exei paradothei sto eleos...--Hectorian 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anachonisms

The article gave El Greco's birthplace as Fodele, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. However:

There was no place called Heraklion at the time of El Greco's birth. It was called Candia in Venetian (the rulers' language); and in Greek, Μεγάλο Κάστρο or Χάνδακας. The name Heraklion was coined in 1913, based on a Roman port Heracleum in the same general area.
There was no such country as Greece at the time of his birth. Crete was part of the Venetian Empire. The term Greece was used as a geographic designation at that time, but probably did not include Crete, Cyprus, etc. at the time. "Crete" is a clear and unambiguous geographic specification of his place of birth.
He said himself that he was from Candia in a document exhibited in Iraklion in 1990 (Burlington Magazine 132:1052 (Nov., 1990), pp. 813).
On the other hand, obviously the ethnonym "Greek" was in use (referring to his native language? to his Orthodox religion?); after all, he called himself Il Greco in Venice and El Greco in Spain.

Therefore, I changed the birthplace to read Fodele, Candia (modern Iraklion), Crete. Miskin changed it back, claiming "rv according to the infoboxes found in the Louvre and probably every art museum worldwide". I don't know what the label says in the Louvre, but I suspect it says that he is "Greek" and that if it specifies where he was born, it says "Candia, Crete", not "Heraklion, Greece".

I have tried to do a bit of Web research on this. Using general Web search is confounded by the El Greco Hotel, tourism sites, etc., so I looked on scholar.google.com. There is approximately the same number of results for [El-Greco Candia] as for [El-Greco Heraklion], but if you look at the individual results, you discover that most of those including Heraklion are the addresses of exhibitions or research institutions. So in scholar.google.com, Candia seems to be the preferred form. --Macrakis 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is an Anachronism, yet sources refer to it by its anachronistic name, hence it should stay that way. The infobox in Louvre says "Crete, Greece". Miskin 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even important, you must be really bored to make such lengthly discussions for such insignificant debates. Miskin 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this one case is unimportant in itself. But the principle is important across the entire Wikipedia. It is ridiculous to talk about Kaliningrad, East Prussia; Istanbul, the capital of the Byzantine Empire; or Heraklion, Greece in the 16th century. If you expect to have the historical names of Greek cities in Asia Minor and Magna Graecia to be mentioned appropriately, you should accept the principle that historical names be used universally.

As for your specific argument, I am not sure where you found "Crete, Greece" in the Louvre: online, I find Candie (Grèce). And as I say, other scholarly sources preponderantly favor "Candia, Crete". --Macrakis 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't know why you removed the reference to Fodele and especially to Iraklion/Candia. He is certainly from the region of Iraklion/Candia. Whether he is actually from Fodele (as is widely claimed) is less certain, of course. The solution to that is: "Fodele (?), Candia, Crete". --Macrakis 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in the Spanish section, under his own paintings. This has nothing to do with wanting the word "Iraklio" to appear, it has to do with your pettiness confusing the readers. Furthermore, to make the long story short, Britannica reads:
"Not much is known of El Greco's early life, his family, or his artistic training. By his own testimony, Domenikos Theotokopoulos was born about 1541 in Iráklion on the island of Crete." [12] Miskin 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What edition is that from? (Oh, I see now, that's the "student edition".) Let's look at the full current online edition of the Britannica, where that phrase doesn't appear, and which starts off "born 1541, Candia [Iráklion], Crete". The 1911 edition starts "Cretan painter... born in Crete" (with no mention of Greece, Candia, or of course Iraklion/Heraklion, which didn't yet exist). Tell me something, as far as "not confusing the readers", do you really want articles to say things like "Patriarch Nicephorus I was born in Istanbul"?!?! That is precisely the same case. --Macrakis 16:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you consider Crete a historically Venetian territory occupied by Greeks, I don't see any possible relevance. I still don't see why would the student edition be less reliable as you imply. I proved that at least one version of the story has an official status, hence neither version is POV. What happens in such cases? Miskin 16:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The student edition is an abridgement (540 words out of 3000 in the full article), apparently of an older version. There is no such thing as an "official status" here. We are trying to write a good encyclopedia. We use our judgement. The EB, the Louvre tag, the scholar.google.com evidence are all elements of what one hopes is a constructive discussion. There is no absolute numerical principle, there is no definitive answer. When we (e.g. you and I) disagree, we try to come to a solution which we both think is good, and which represents all reputable points of view. I think your current version is fine, except that Candia/Iraklion should be linked (trivial issue), and that it doesn't make sense to mention "Greece". Where would you say Archimedes was born? Syracuse, Sicily is certainly correct -- more so that Siracusa, Sicilia, by the way. But neither Syracuse, Sicily, Greece, nor Syracuse, Sicily, Italy makes any sense. Syracuse was unquestionably a Greek city culturally -- probably more Greek in every way in Archimedes' time than Candia was Greek in El Greco's time. But it is not part of some geographic entity called Greece (Magna Graecia is not Greece). It is arguable whether it is part of a geographic entity called Italy, and certainly has nothing to do with the political entity called Italy. If we want a correct political identification of El Greco's Candia, we'd have to say Candia, Crete, Republic of Venice, but I don't see any point in that....

As I say, all this is important not because of this particular case, but because of the more general issue. Some editors recently have been taking to removing Greek names from Turkish and Republic of Macedonia cities, for example. This traduces history. It also traduces history to claim that Candia in the 16th century was a part of some "Greece". (And again, this is a completely different issue from El Greco's identification as a "Greek"). --Macrakis 17:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Greco

I don't understand why you moved my comments on Talk:El Greco to my personal talk page. The El Greco comments were narrowly focussed on the substantive question of appropriate placenames. I see no reason to remove them from the El Greco page; in fact, they should stay there to clarify the editorial decisions for future editors. No doubt you did this in good faith, but please do remember that it is against WP policy to modify other people's Talk comments. --Macrakis 23:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can move your comments in Talk:El Greco to your talk page if you like. I wrote my comments there, and I see no reason to move them. --Macrakis 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks

ok!take yor time!tha kanoun rv oi alloi simera,giati egw den mporw...uparhei o kanonas...Pantws einai exorgistiko na prospathoun na valoun ta dika tous xwris oute mia logiki pigi!xereis apo pou einai aftos?--Hectorian 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Den ksero alla fantazomai apo ti xora ton xontron. Miskin 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, pws kai exeis ayto to username? NikoSilver ^(T)@(C) 17:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapoioi 8ewroun oti einai paraplanhtiko gia na pernas gia slabos. Mhpws 8a eprepe na anafereis to biblio sto user page sou? NikoSilver ^(T)@(C) 17:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Den exeis kataxwrhsei taxydromeio. 8a eprepe. Den dhmiourgei kanena problhma. NikoSilver ^(T)@(C) 17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mporeis panta bebaia na steileis sto diko mou th diey8ynsh sou... NikoSilver ^(T)@(C) 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, ya des auto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan... --Latinus 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endiaferon to link. 8a proteina na baleis mia frasoula sth selida sou pou na anaferei oti to xrhsimopoieis ws parafrash. Perimenw to gramma sou... NikoSilver ^(T)@(C) 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

You are rowing your boat but you don't know where you are going. I'll deal with this tomorrow.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Row, row, row your board gently down the stream.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax

Ya, o NikoSilver theli na mu stilis e-mail - stile mu kati, i diefthinsi mu ine stin selida hristi mu. Theli kati na su pi, lei, ine simandiko. --Latinus 00:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire

I can see that "millet" concept is very important for you. I do not know the significance of emphasizing the ethnic character of the "Ottoman Empire" in the first sentence of the main page. You have to remember, these articles are for general audience. There is already an article Millet (Ottoman Empire) that covers the concept. It would be nice for you to improve that article, it needs your attention. It is nice that you take on very controversial issues. If you like to develop state structure of Ottoman Empire, there is a page that is devoted to it. You can improve that page, too. However, you also need to be careful where to rise these issues. Trying to push it to places that does not directly related would damage your cause. It generates an image that you do not respect other things than what you see important. If I can help you someway, please ask.--tommiks 09:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman system greatly benefited from the knowledge and service of its ethnic groups, this should be mentioned in the article. But definitely not in the first sentence. Everybody assumes an empire is multi-ethnic, I don't see the point.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia

Please answer one question: If Serbia's priority is disqualified by Serbian autonomy being the product of Russo-Turkish conflict, how would you describe the Battle of Navarino?

I suppose you will describe this as pro-Serb; but I'm not. I'm merely curious. Septentrionalis 06:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol...the link u gave me is 'editing user talk Hectorian':)Kagan's maps were just 2 different maps on the same subject.i do not see anything bad on them either.i hope that we will finally come to a solution in Greeks, cause i do not wanna seeing it being 'disputed'.btw, i hope that Pmanderson will cooperate well.all i want in this article is not to say that the greeks are not inheritors of ancient greece and byzantium.just to state the obvious, with sources and everything...(nothing to do with nationalism or ethnic purity and such bullshit) --Hectorian 00:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min psaroneis me auta pou sou leei o akatanomastos. Rixnei adeia na piasei gemata. Den prepei na perasei i malakia tou stous 'Ellines', autos einai o monos pou exei mi-oudeteres protheseis kai kinitra pano sto arthro. Pisteuo pos auto pleon einai fanero. Stasou plai mou kai gyrna ta edit tou sta dika mas. Emeis tha synexizoume na megalonoume to arthro ospou kapoia stigmi de tha ton pairnei kai tha stamatisei. Eixe stamatisei proigoumenos mexri pou o tourkos tou edose elpides. Miskin 02:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks

Hello Miskin. Please check this. Perhaps we should use ref at Greeks too? The edit summaries will be forgoten. talk to +MATIA 13:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read french? talk to +MATIA 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this and see if it can be used for that article. talk to +MATIA 15:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you press the two (left and right) light blue arrows you'll see the rest of the book too.

This should be the first page. talk to +MATIA 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian people

Hi Miskin. Yes, I do think that your last edits are an improvement respect the former version. I do have some problems with it, I must admit, even if of no great entity. The notion Byzantine Greeks is quite problematic in an Italian context; differently from the central administration, the Byzantines in Italy used Latin for administration, especially till they held Ravenna; and even after, Bari, the capital of the Byzantine administation was a completely Latin city. So the impact of the Byzantines on the linguistic development of Italy was marginal, in my view. As for the Normans, I'd say almost nil; it should be remembered that there was never a norman invasion in Italy, but simply the separate arrival of small groups of mercenaries. Also speaking of Greco-Etruscan settlements makes me quite uneasy; the Greeks assumed linguistic superiority in Calabria and Puglia not through their numbers, but by hellenizing through their culture the Illyrian and Italic population present there. As for Etruscans, it may very well be that they were in Italy before the Indo-European peoples, as heirs of the Villanovian culture, so calling them settlers may be uncorrect. But mostly I have problems with "Like the Iberians, there is a notable physical difference between the upper northern third of Italy and the southern part of the country. Due to regular population movements, the differences are not stark or pronounced, but do exist and may correspond to the ancient Italo-Celtic and Greco-Etruscan settlements rather than the various later invasions of Germanic tribes". This smells a bit to racialist to me; shouldn't we better remove it? Tell me your opinion. Ciao! --Aldux 17:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Γειά

Δες αυτό (για τις αναφορές που κάνεις στο Έλληνες). NikoSilver ^(T)@(C) 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kane mia epanafora sto arthro twn ex anatolwn...egw den mporw...thanks --Hectorian 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA

Καλημέρα φίλε. Ο Μπότσαρης ήταν, σε κάποια φάση θα ανεβάσω στο wikisource το μανιφέστο του αρβανίτικου συνδέσμου που το υπογράφουν οι απόγονοι του Μπότσαρη, Τζαβέλα κτλ. Για τον Εγγονόπουλο μπορείς να δεις τα έργα του για τον Μπούα, Σκεντέρμπεη κτλ. Εννοείται ότι για όλους όσους είχα βάλει είχα τσεκάρει τα απομνημονεύματά τους ή τις βιογραφίες τους, αλλά δεν έχει νόημα να το γράφω σε κάθε γραμμή - κανονικά θα έπρεπε να μεγάλωνα (ή να έγραφα) τα άρθρα-βιογραφίες τους που υπάρχουν στην βικιπαίδεια αλλά βαριέμαι.

Έγραψε με ref το βιβλίο που είχες αναφέρει στην αρχή του άρθρου - αν είναι αυτό του Μπάνφι ίσως θες να γράψεις κάτι σαν Banfi (1996). talk to +MATIA 06:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ottoman Empire

By the way, I apologize if I sounded rather aggressive in my "copyright violation" claim. I am a child of the university system, and as a result, anything that smacks even slightly (and however unintentionally) of plagiarism really gets my blood boiling.

Please do not take it as any sort of personal offense, because it was never meant as such, and I am sorry if it may have sounded as if it were. —Saposcat 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.No need to discuss anything...Inanna 00:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information you're reverting in 'Greeks' is taken right out of Britannica (it has the source right next to it). You revert one more time and I report you for vandalism. Miskin 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh shut up. I really doubt Britannica would write something like: "Modern Greeks are the inheritors of ancient Greece", only a jingoist Greek can come up with such sentence. Where can I buy a copy of Britannica by the way. Apperantly everybody has one.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

If I am not mistaken, you broke 3RR on the Battle of Manzikert page. I am not going to report you though, maybe I should but I won't. I am tired of you.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you underestimate my intelligence. You won't report me for two reasons:

I've made only three reverts, which means that I have not violated 3RR.
You've made the same number of reverts as I have.
Miskin 17:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no intelligence to underestimate:

1th revert 20:39, March 31 2006

2nd revert 12:25, April 1 2006

3rd revert 13:45, April 1 2006

4th revert 14:51, April 2006

Or maybe I should report you and see if I am right or wrong, eh?--Kagan the Barbarian 12:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you should. I still see only 3 reverts in the 1st of April (UTC). Have a good month. Miskin 17:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we don't know about the 24 hours rule, eh?--Kagan the Barbarian 17:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose we don't know the difference between a "revert" and an "edit". Miskin 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All 4 of them are reverts. Anyway, you can stop finding excuses to save your ass, if I said I won't report then I won't. Night--Kagan the Barbarian 19:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report me if you want. An administration's presence and reverting back to Miskin's version is proof enough to show whose reverts were justified and whose weren't. Miskin 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, giati den mporw na sou steilw gramma? mipws prepei na kaneis kati gi'afto? --Hectorian 20:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok!rixe mia matia s'afto pou sou esteila. --Hectorian 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe,to eida! na sou pw tin alitheia, to perimena (an kai polu argise!). gia na doume apo dw kai pera ti tha ginei... --Hectorian 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You earn trust, you don't ask for it. You earn respect, you don't ask for it. Until you prove your good faith, I find your words empty.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanites

Thanks for your note. I'm sure we can clarify the thing about the language when we both have access to the Trudgill article. As for the rest (ethnic characteristics etc.), I have the feeling our positions (and the present state of the article) are far closer than the discussion of the recent days made it sound. Let's just skip over that discussion now, it had a tendency of getting sidelined in quite unnecessary ways and getting far more confrontational than necessary. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me, proving something to you? I think you continue to underestimate other people's intelligence. I tried to approach you and calm you down, explain that I have nothing against you or your edits, and I'd even be willing to reply to your emails. Yet, you chose to respond with sarcasm and insults. The last thing you could do to remedy this behaviour would be to tell me that I need to "prove myself to you". Miskin 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying I underestimate your intelligence but still I have to explain my sentences twice to you for you to understand. Not sure if I am underestimating anything. I said you prove you are trustworthy and earn trust, you don't ask for it like you did. Your past actions speak for themselves and you are still keeping the same pattern. You deleted Cretanforever's addition not because you thought he was Greek but because you didn't like what he was saying. You are 100% Greek POV pusher and a chauvinist, now you are only adding stuff you like to the Ottoman Empire article. Just know that I won't be around here forever, eventually I'll lose interest but Wikipedia will be here for a very long time and as long as users are free to edit, your edits will be reverted or edited thousands of times each year. So you are not really winning anything or changing anything, it is like writing on water. So just remember this next time you get a boner editing an article for your chauvinist goals.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des kati...

Des ayto. Se afora. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koita na amyn8eis, giati nomizw oti technically den einai 100% rvs ola. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etsi nomizo ki ego, alla an einai kapoios admin pou de me sympathei stin parea de tha metrisei. Den iksera gia ton 24oro kanona, prepei na'nai kainourios. Alla de tha katso kai na tous parakalao, an den ntrepetai o akatanomastos tote einai aksios tis moiras tou. Miskin 12:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diabase ayto gia na katalabeis ti pistevw gi'ayton. Tou tairiazei ganti. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To phra. Apantaga tosh wra... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To eides to diko sou? Mpainei sto paixnidi kai tritos (tou egrapse mhnyma o prwtos). NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Successes of the Ottoman state

I have reinserted a (hopefully slight less objectionable) truncated version of the Quataert quote, and also a reference to the Battle of Navarino that you were good enough to mention. Hopefully, this new version will put an end to a rather silly quarrel. —Saposcat 09:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ntropi

De perno efthini gia ta dika su ta lathi. Ase to edit warring, tis vrisies, ke ti kakia, ke kati yinete. --Macrakis 14:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bosniak sentiment in Greece

Is it true that there's a large Anti-Bosniak sentiment in Greece like the article suggests? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the numbers in Matzikert? mallon tous evgales kata lathos... --Hectorian 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyxaristw

gia to mhnyma. Ayta ta sports den einai gia mena, den mporw na diaxeiristw tosh epithetikothta kai frastikh via apo ta filarakia mas.

Oi Ellines ths Wikipedia eiste poly ajiologa paidia. Sas parakoloythw me endiaferon. Sas eyxomai kala edits kai panw ap' ola gero stomachi!--Avmatso 05:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! --Aldux 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language death

Sorry Miskin, but I think I still disagree: as far as I'm acquainted with current scholarly terminology in the field, the term "language death" does not apply to whatever happened to Latin or Old English. "Dead" yes, "death" no. And it's not the case that the one logically entails the other, as one might naively think, because that would be taking biomorphic metaphors too literally. There are many ways a linguistic code system ("a language") can cease to have native speakers, and only a subset of those are currently referred to as "language death". I'll try and find references if you insist (or, alternatively, you could try to find some for your view too.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I take it you noticed that my version is substantially different from the earlier one? In particular, it's not saying that "the Latin language has never died [...] it continues to be passed on as mother tongue even today". That, in this formulation, was indeed rather misleading. (The problem is that the it in this sentence hasn't got a clear reference.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S.: Okay, after the long and heavy work of turning my chair and reaching into the bookshelf behind me, I actually found a reference for you :-) Sarah G. Thomason (2001), Language contact: An introduction, p. 223-225., Chapter on "Defining language death" She says: "Most linguists would agree that Latin is a dead language, [...] Consider, too, the way in which Latin 'died': it never lost speakers. Instead, its speakers spread out [...] until they were speaking the several Romance languages, not Latin itself. [...] There was no moment at which the language people were speaking ceased to be Latin and became Italian [...], so pinpointing the death of Latin is clearly impossible. (Some linguists, in fact, will disagree with the claim that Latin is a dead language, arguing that – like the dinosaurs that turned into birds – Latin evolved instead of dying.)" - After noting some more problems and indeterminacies with possible definitions of the term, Thomason concludes: "No one studies Latin as a case of language death". The whole remaining part of her chapter on language death is concerned with cases where speaker communities gave up one language in favour of another one, much like in our Arvanitika case. - I could also look up the Dorian collection we talked about the other day, it's a collection of more specialized articles. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: the mainstream of scholars regard latin as a dead language. - Yes, as I said, no doubt about that. As I read that passage, its purpose seems to be to clarify the unavoidable conceptual paradoxes that arise between actual usage of these terms in scholarship on the one hand, and logical definitions of the terms on the other hand. The author actually states that it is difficult to provide a full logical definition of "language death" in such a way that it covers everything that is conventionally included under the concept in actual usage, and excludes everything that is not - Latin being in the second category. The reason for these indeterminacies is of course our insistence on talking of languages as if they were "things" or even "living beings", which have a life-span, an identity as a discrete entity which they carry through time (or eventually lose). In fact, that's not what they are, but both scholarly and popular terminology is steeped in these metaphors. The formulation that Latin is actually still "alive" today is really just taking one such paradox to its logical extreme, almost a reductio ad absurdum.

"As for the trasition from Latin to Italian, I'm surprised to hear something like that. The Italian language was almost the invention one single person." : Well, no. Maybe the Italian written standard language was created in this way, but that was of course on the basis of the natural development of the centuries, and that's all what counts here. The end of Latin and the beginning of (spoken) Italian etc. would have to be located long before the conscious written innovation (Dante etc.) BTW, I have to admit I shortened the quote there, she actually says: "... Italian, Spanish, French ..." or something to that effect; the sentence is not about Italian specifically, but about the Romance languages in general.

"The source is somewhat contradictory as it questions the status of the Romance languages as an independent language family." - Hm, I can't really follow you here. What kind of independence is this passage denying? Independence from what?

"I think that the author might see the "life" of Latin via all european languages which have assimilated its words (whether Romance or not), and not Latin as a linguistic unit." - No, I'm pretty certain that's not what she means.

"I can't believe that no modern linguist has ever detected a deadline of Vulgar Latin. I think what is mean by the reference to Italian, is that its contemporaries never noticed that their language went through a significant transition, which is natural. In modern linguistics however, that's not the case." - Well, the point is that the contemporaries not only didn't notice there was something special happening, but that there really wasn't anything special to notice. What they were doing to their language at any one time didn't differ in nature from what you and I are doing to our languages right now - just speaking it, passing it on to the next generation, and changing it ever so slowly in the process. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that we today conventionally refer to Latin as a language distinct from the modern daughter languages, and in that sense Latin is no longer "alive" - but that very division into distinct "languages" along the historical path is largely conventional. ::Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smyrni

Giati epitithesai amesws? perimene na deis pws tha xeiristo to thema. Kai min les 'a compromise between two users...blablabla hiding the truth'...den sumvivastika se tipota akoma! xereis polu kala ta edits pou exw kanei se diafora arthra, kai to mono pou den na me katigoriseis einai oti kruvw tin alitheia! Se ligo na deis to grammatokivwtio sou. kati tha exeis mesa --Hectorian 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwse mou eikositesseris wres, kai an den kataferw kati, analamvaneis esy. ok? --Hectorian 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geia!Dimiourgisa arthro gia ton Chrysostomos of Smyrna. kaneis den tha exei twra pia logo na ton vgalei apo to arthro tis polis (oxi oti eixe prin, alla leme twra...). --Hectorian 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia

After extensive edit warring, article protection, and the statement of the extended version supporting side regarding both the name of the article, and the intro paragraph, a poll has been placed. The brief version supporting side is to keep the name of the article AND the intro paragraph free of the UN name (FYROM). Keep in mind that you can select more than one of the options (8! to the moment) that may suit you. Please participate in the vote and ask other editors you know to do so too. Increased participation can make the outcome of the vote as NPOV as possible. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Σχετικά με το παραπάνω, πρέπει να δεις αυτό το σχόλιο και να πράξεις αναλόγως. Άμεσα. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Σχετικά με το παραπάνω, πρέπει να δεις αυτό και αυτό και να πράξεις αναλόγως. Thanks. --Enas Filos 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nastiness

You know, Miskin, I'm tired of your nastiness, attacks, and vindictiveness. And I'm tired of your hiding them from other editors by writing them in Greek. From now on, my communications with you will be in English. If you write me in Greek, I will first translate your comments into English.

I think it is possible to disagree on substantive issues in a civil way. I do hope you will learn to do that. --Macrakis 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Miskin's talk page is not the appropriate place to write that, but it just came up my mind: Macrakis, i came across the article Yoruks a little time ago... it is filled with your POV! both the article and the talk page (in which only u participate!). maybe someone Sarakatsan or Vlach should take a look at it and totally re-write it... --Hectorian 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I have never contributed to that article or its talk page -- though it does look interesting. As for "maybe someone Sarakatsan or Vlach should take a look at it and totally re-write it", that would be fine. It would also be fine if a Bolivian revised it. --Macrakis 00:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Jonbenet.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Jonbenet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

feydey 14:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Line

Stop erasing the topic line, and replacing it with something els to your comfort. This is considered a crime against the rules of Wikipedia. Learn the the definition of criticism and how it distinguish from personal attakcs! --Albanau 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm "erasing" is a racial slur. Miskin 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats your crazy opinion... "Extreme Greek Nationalist Propaganda" is this "racial slut" is scarcely isnt.. So you are calling me a racist now? --Albanau 13:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do it all the time, do you know want me to go through your edit history and see how often you make accusations based on people's ethnic backgrounds? Miskin 13:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

First off, an RfC won't be neccisary, as this is quite obviously a personal attack. While I appreciate you removing it from the page, you shouldn't be making them in the first place (nor should you be accusing Lukas of anything for bringing this matter to my attention). I do agree that Macrakis hasn't been entirely civil either (and I will attempt to look into that), but responding in kind is no more appropriate than the initial attack. You don't need to be 'on good terms' with any other editor, but you do need to treat them with respect when interacting with them. Consider this a warning, and please, report further personal attacks to the admins, and do not make them yourself. --InShaneee 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carthage RfC

Sorry; no intent to imply that you accused carthaginians - I was just specifying that contested truths need to be published, but there are limits to doing so - more a guide to those who would wholesale delete or push a POV than to those who edit responsibly - I had no intent of 'preaching to the choir'Bridesmill 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand, guess we are reasonably on same songsheet. Wish people would get accounts before editing....Bridesmill 03:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 different IP within 10 mins?Bridesmill 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire

The article shows Quataert as a reference [13] for the previous quote so what I added is in essence of what he is saying. I agree with what you were trying to add to the article and it is still there. Please no further edit wars for both of us, I am sure we can spare time for more constructive edits on other articles.--85.108.47.221 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Battle of Manzikert, do you know any after battle where the Byzantine forces put up a significant resistance against Turks ever again? I think not, that's why I added that last sentence to the article, "and were never able to challenge Turks again in AsiaMinor" not for any POV reason. If you can tell me any later significant battles in Asia Minor between Turks and Byzantines, I'll leave it.--85.108.47.221 15:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Greek Macedonians

I am not trying to make edit-warring. Just read the context of the sentence and you'll see that by it self, it is nonsence. There isn't Greek Macedonian ethnic group. ,,Greek Macedonians" is a regional term. Please, don't make a paradox out of this. Bomac 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAS / WERE are PAST TENSE. Today there is only one ethnic group - GREEKS. Gee, this Balkan nationalism really brings nostalgia. Bomac 15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, but it seems that there isn't much ,,Ancient Greek" left in you, if you thought of that at Bomac's talk-page. FoxyNet 17:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, if true...

I'll keep this short. You've obviously not been watching me very before coming to your (hilarious) conclusion. Thanks for your time my sweet Prince, and I hope you aren't a nationalist too... - FrancisTyers 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you are perfectly correct, admins aren't any more important than any other user, we just tend to have more cleaning up to do. - FrancisTyers 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message

Don't worry, I don't (think that I) misunderstand you. Quite to the contrary, as I said on Ottoman Empire's talk page, I respect your stubbornness on the issue.

Myself, I would have liked to continue contributing to the article (and may well do so in future), but I got sidetracked by other projects—Wikipedia is very good at sidetracking one's efforts. All the best, Saposcat 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No

I've seen the talk page and the edit history. It seems only you are so persistent on keeping your paragraph. I think user Saposcat did the mediation, on which everyone could agree but then it got reverted again. As a Turk with half Bosniak ethnicity, I have no problem with the one I reverted to, I don't know why you do. You have to understand that that paragraph is just an opinion and it may be considered offending. Than you for your other contributions to the article though.--Phew 09:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how without Quataert's one opinion, the article violates NPOV and I didn't say Saposcat took sides, on the contrary I said he/she stayed neutral and offered a agreeable version which you are still not accepting and insisting on your initial addition. This is not brute forced, Miskin, this is democracy. On the other hand what you are doing is brutally enforcing your addition on the article which only causes edit wars.--Phew 17:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles and love

Percy makes a very interesting argument that Achilles and Patroclus were used, from ca. 630BCE on, as symbols for the new custom of institutionalized pederasty. Which would explain the confusion over which of the two was the erastes, and their egalitarian roles in the Iliad. I guess that's what heroes are for ;) Haiduc 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that Homer's heroes do not fit the pederastic mould, I am not sure that they were not in love with each other. Patroclus had goodness and temperance, Achilles had beauty, they grew up together, Achilles took responsibility for Patroclus in front of Menoetius . . . then there is the excessive mourning, its physical dimension, and Thetis own (telling) comment, "It is a fine thing to sleep with women too." Hints, hints, hints, though nothing more direct can be said in epic, it is not allowed by the form. "Syntrophos" is interesting, evokes the homosocial syssitia, and the later symposia. Haiduc 02:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iliad 24.130. Who said anything about him not liking women? Haiduc 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pontus

Hi Miskin. If you have perplexities regard anything I say or edit, could you send a message to my talk page? I don't think it's fully appropriate to leave a note on another's talk page to awnser assertions made by me. Thanks and ciao.--Aldux 20:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no offence Miskin, don't worry :-) Have Care, and Ciao.--Aldux 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doric dialect move

Miskin, I see that you have made the move that you wanted. Fine. I won't object any more to what you have done. However when one makes such a move, one is also supposed to clean up the links to the original article which have now become redirects, double redirects, or just plain links to the wrong article. Please finish the move by doing that. You can discover what links to the three articles, Doric dialect, Doric Greek and Doric dialect (Scotland) by using the What links here tool. Then you can fix any links that need fixing. Note that if you haven't done that by Friday, then I will have to do it instead and this hardly seems fair since the move was your idea. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I remember you, we talked on irc! Although I can't for the life of me remember what about :) - FrancisTyers 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Thessaloniki. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. —Khoikhoi 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess you're sort of right. In the future try not to edit war, and only revert when necessary. BTW, have you seen this? Ridiculous! —Khoikhoi 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Macedonians

Hi, how are you? :-) I have a question. Who are the Greek Macedonians? You can answer me on my usrer page, there you can see mine POV. I understand not your personal opinion about.

Vlatko 3:13, 29 April (UTC)

Be my guest --Realek 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin

Do you have any connection with Miskin in south Wales? Deb 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a village called Miskin only a few miles from me. But I don't know how the name originated. Deb 16:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done now? Telex 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which (specific) edit are you talking about, this or this? Telex 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Place names

The Greek name is in Smyrna, and in the Istanbul article, it's in the "Name" section. I just don't see what the big deal is by having historical names. Look at the Ardahan article for example. I guess the fact that it's a historical name for the island makes it relevant, and deserves to be mentioned. —Khoikhoi 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well I guess you're right. The user who originally added it is now banned. Just keep an eye on that page as she might revert using her dynamic IP. —Khoikhoi 16:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. How do you say "regards" in Greek? —Khoikhoi 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

It's like this:

SING

Nom: η πόλις
Gen: της πόλεως
Dat: τη πόλει
Acc: την πόλιν
Voc: ω πόλι(ς)

PLU

Nom: αι πόλεις
Gen: των πόλεων
Dat: ταις πόλεσιν
Acc: τας πόλεις
Voc: ω πόλεις

I know it's confusing without the proper τόνους και πνεύματα ;-) Telex 17:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, I'm confused now. The page says:

The name Istanbul comes from the Greek words εις την Πόλη – eis tēn Pólē (pronounced [is tim boli]) or στην Πόλη, from ancient Greek eìs tēn Polin (εἰς τήν Πόλιν) and meaning "in the city" or "to the city", Constantinople being the largest city in the world.

It calls it ancient Greek (although that may be an anachronism and should be replaced with Byzantine Greek). Telex 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's modern Greek though. Not ancient Greek - anyway, never mind. Telex 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argeads

Καıρε Miskin. Could you explain me exactly your difficulties with the Macedon-related article? While I've always believed that Macedonian was a dialect or a sister language, and culturally Greek, notwithstanding a considerable degree of barbarism, like Epirus, I think we should be careful about ancestry claims; the fact that Argaeads and the Aeacids claimed descent from Heracles and Achilles doesn't mean that it's true, or even probable. Ciao!--Aldux 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the ideal place to treat a question like that should be the article Argead dynasty, which is crying for expansion. I'm not so sure it would be the best idea to start repeating this in all the biographic articles; it may be judged giving undue weight to the mater. This is how I see it. Ciao, and have care :-)--Aldux 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What's your opinion on what should be done over at Republic of Macedonia? According to Britannica and the country's constitution, Albanian is an official language. The users Vlatkoto and MatriX (formerly Bitola) keep removing it though. What do you think should be done? Telex 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you know that if FYROM annexed the Macedonian peripheries from Greece and the Blagoevgrad oblast from Bulgaria to create the "United Macedonia", then, even if FYROM's claims of 280,000 Slavs in Greece are accurate, the largest population group of this hypothetical state would be ethnic Greeks, and the result of this would be that it would be a Greek-run state. Why do these users (Macedonia, Makedonia, Vlatkoto) still claim that they want a "United Macedonia" then? Telex 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des kati

Ya des to arthro ya tin poli tu monastiriu. Kati kataferame na valume (vrikame kales piyes). Telex 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks bearing gifts

Hi Miskin, you just wrote on the Byzantine Empire talk page that one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade quoted the "Greeks bearing gifts" line...do you know what source that is in? I know William of Tyre uses it when writing about Alexius I and Andronicus Comnenus, and some Third Crusade chronicles also allude to it. It would be fascinating to find it in the Fourth Crusade as well. I was doing some non-Wikipedia research about this, but I was mostly concerned with crusader Jerusalem and I haven't looked at Fourth Crusade sources yet. Do you know if it is in Villehardouin, or some other chronicler? Adam Bishop 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Phillips' book, of course...I'm in the middle of moving, so most of my books are elsewhere, including that one. Thanks, that's very helpful! Adam Bishop 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des auto. Kalo ine ;-) Telex 16:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An s' endiaferi, des ti ekane sto Constantine Kanaris. Telex 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des thn istoria s'ayto pou sou'steila me il tax. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des aftus tus hartes: [14] ke [15]. Itan prin ton Tito, ara i Slavomakedones legondan Vulgari ;-) Episis, dihni Alvanika se polla meri stin Ellada, ke tin Ipiro (poli ligo vevea se shesi me tus vorioipirotes). An thelis na andithrasis se harti des to Macedonian_language#Different_political_views_on_the_language. Telex 23:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, molis tora diavasa to sholio su. Ton ehis di ton harti. Simvivasmos itan - ego ke o NikoSilver grapsame to caption (pu lei oti bori na miliete i bori na mi miliete stin Ellada ke Vulgaria). Veltiosi ine - des arhika pos itan [16]. Telex 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des Arvanites#Names (ke oles i piyes eki ine). O oros "Tsamis" bori na prosdiorizi ton Musulmano i ke ton Hristiano. Simfona me tis piyes (ke Ellinikes iparhun - o Moraitis), afti theorun ton eafto tus Arvanites (diladi hristiani). Telos pandon, den nomizo oti vlapti o hartis. To arthro ton Arvaniton lei xekathara oti den theorun ton eafto tus Alvani ke oti an Alvanos pi kati tetio (opos px o Berisha) prozvallonde. Oso ya tus Slavophonus, iparhun - to provlima ine oti i perissoteri den thelun na ehun kamia shesi me ta Skopia (i Grkomani pu legame). Mono afti tu Uraniu Toxu (pu ta afendika tus (Voskopulos klp) spudasane sta Skopia). Katalaves tora ti yinete? Telex 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya na dis ti ine i "Makedoniki glossa", des auto (to ehis xanadi nomizo). Des ke auto (idika tin epistoli pu estile stus Ellines Mitropolites tis Makedonias) - den ksero an prepi na ton pernume sovara, yati grafe ke kati paraxena, alla an alithevi, xerume pyes ine i prothesit ton Skopion. Telex 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ego eho mia ksafelfi pu spudazi sto Panepistimio Ditikis Makedonias sti Florina, ke den ehi ute enan Slavo (parolo pu o Makedonias lei oti "Makedones" ine i pliopsifia). Kata ti gnomi mu, i Slavi stin Ellada tha ine merikes hiliades - stin perasmeni apografi, 41,000 itan, tora sigura tha ine ligoteri (iparhun ke 90,000 metanastes ap ta Skopia tora - kita ti ekane o Realek otan tu to ipa [17]). Telex 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koita ligo il tax. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

I am now :) - FrancisTyers 13:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perimene omos. Prepi na vrume kales (atrandahtes) piyes diaforetika bori na to protinun ya diagrafi. Ihan ftyaksi tetyo arthro stin Elliniki Wikipedia ke me omadiki psifo, to apotelesma itan na diagrafi. An simvi kati tetyo edo, i tapinosi tha ine aforiti. Idi fovame ya to arthro ya tin yenoktonia ton Pondion - ihe psifisti prin apo merikus mines na diagrafi, ke tora kapios to epanefere. Telex 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des ke afto [18]. Telex 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafo ena arthro (se afto to thema) tora. Dos mu merika lepta na to telioso ke meta elenkse to. Eho vri polles piyes (ke mia afstraliani enkiklopedia) ke lei poli orea progmata (stus Slavomakedones den tha aresun omos). Otan to telioso sindoma, olo footnotes tha ine. Den tha diagrafi me tipota. Telex 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episis, ehis di ton Ellada me tria exaria. Xerume pios ine ;-) Telex 17:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orea, to xekinisa. Des to ke pes mu tin gnomi su. Telex 18:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des afto na dis tin apopsi ton Skopianon. Telex 18:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

With quite a surprise I've noted that not one, but two editors have started Slavery in ancient Greece at the same time; and both making the translation of the French featured version, that you're attempting I believe, which is being contemporarily done by User:Bridesmill, who's working at the translation at his sandbox following a request for the translation of the French article I made and that he gently accepted. For this double translation being done could you wait some time before editing again on the article? Or else I'm afraid great confusion might emerge. Thanks, and Ciao.--Aldux 10:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Helping

Mou apantises sa'auta pou egrapsa "your not helping". Mporis na pis oti auta pou egrapsa den einai alithia? San Ellines prepi na eimaste enomeni sto Makedoniki Provlima, kai apoti vlepw sta diafora posts then eimaste katholou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRMAKA (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, su eho stili e-mail. Telex 13:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ke xana. Telex 13:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed wiki-stalking

Miskin, feel free to report my supposed "wiki-stalking" to whatever admin or arbitration board you like. It happens that we are interested in many of the same topics, though we often disagree on the substance. I believe any neutral third party will see that my edits are always in good faith, and my comments always civil. --Macrakis 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karfw8hkes!

Miskin is awarded this Barnstar for his particularly fine idea of an article Greek Macedonians. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Se karfwsane! Gi ayto ki egw lew na sou dwsw ena asteraki... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Macrakis

Miskin, if you check my edit history, you will find that I have contributed to the Cuisine of Greece and Gyros articles in the past; they are in my watchlist, and I follow any changes to them. This is true of most of the other pages where you and I both find ourselves.

I won't take the time to look it up, but I think that occasionally we have been on the same side. Perhaps it was on one of the articles on the history of ancient Greek or something; I don't remember. True, we are often on opposite sides of a discussion, because I come at Greek-related issues from what I hope is an internationalist, academic point of view, and you come at them from a pro-Greek point of view. In any case, I can assure you that my edits are all in perfectly good faith, and I try (though no doubt I sometimes don't succeed) to take into account other POVs when editing, and to write civil edit summaries and comments on Talk. I am happy to see that you acknowledge that.

In recent months, I have abjured multiple reverts. Take a look, for example, at what is going on at (of all things) Baklava right now. I had contributed some well-referenced material and two editors are now adding undocumented theories about Assyrians etc. But I hope someone else will revert this time; I am not interested in flirting with 3RR.

Do I ever look at your contributions outside articles on my watchlist? Sure. I think that's how I came across the dispute on Battle of Manzikert. You will notice that I took no sides there; I simply contributed some information from the Encyclopedia of Islam, which I had handy. Is that "stalking"? I don't think so. I noticed a dispute to which I thought I could contribute productively, and I did. That is, I think, the way WP is supposed to work.

As for your 3RR violation, yes, I noticed that and reported it. What is wrong with that? I also phone the police when I see someone driving dangerously. It is a civic duty.

Do I "badmouth" you behind your back? No, but I do discuss your behavior with other editors. And I think I do it in a far more respectful way than you do. I find it amazing that you complain about this when you harrass new editors such as Greece666 with extraordinary accusations, and call me various names.

About "trying to get other users to share my views", well, yes, trying to persuade fellow editors is part of the collaborative effort on the WP. Is it "against you"? No, it is "for better articles".

Do I think you are a bully? Yes, you often are. You don't necessarily coordinate your bullying in advance -- though if I remember correctly you and Chronographos used to do that -- but it is enough to egg on other bullies and add your two cents.

Do I try to entrap you? No. On the other hand, I have still not figured out how to engage you in a constructive discussion. I am mystified sometimes by the arguments you use -- such as gyros and doner are different because doner must be halal, as though kosher (beef) frankfurters were magically not frankfurters because other frankfurters are made of a blend of beef and pork (or, these days, chicken and turkey).

So, no, I do not 'admit' that I am stalking you. About my intervention on Greece666, if I remember correctly, I noticed his contribution to Macedonia (terminology) (which I was looking at because Khoikhoi had asked me to -- check my Talk page) and wanted to see who he was. I was distressed by the hazing Avg and you were subjecting him to, so I commented.

About ArbCom etc., I do wish you'd either go to ArbCom or stop your threats of going to ArbCom. I would much rather discuss things calmly, but apparently that doesn't work for you....

As for:

If after 2-3 [edits] we haven't reached to an agreement, I'll edit-war with you until a mediator shows up, in which case I'll communicate with him.

Have fun. I don't plan to edit-war at all. If we don't agree after an initial exchange on the encyclopedia page, I will take it to the talk page, where I expect you will discuss the issue in good faith. But don't worry, I have less time for WP these days. --Macrakis 01:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EP

In part, because putting this bit of inconsequential trivia in the intro appears to limit his significance by defining him strictly as "Greek". It's a diminutive put-down whenever its used. It is certainly not how the office self-defines, or how it is generally known within its own sphere. Not now, and not ever.

Your original version which stated this is how he was known "throughout history" was incorrect on its face, and is what originally drew my attention to the edit. I appreciate that it has not been replaced in so many words. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Den ine akrivos etsi - ipame oti tha afisume ton titlo tu arthru an iparhi kalo dab. An den iparhi, tote tha ksekinisume psifus (pu bori na hasume) ya na to alaksume. To provlima mu kseris pio ine? Ehume spatalisi dio epanafores, ke otan o afos pu ehi pathos me ton iustiniano (kseris pion) erthi ke epanaferi ta dika tu, the prepi na imaste perisoteri ya na min ta epivali. --Telex 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ise siguros oti itan sosto afto [19]. Moderno ke asheto ine aoristes ennies ke ine pov afu pios kathorizi ti ine moderno. Ap' ton 20to eona, i ap' to 1500 mh (opos i angliki glossa). Ke to asheto, pos kathorizete? Idio idos (ke i dio omades anthropi ine, ke evropei klp). Katalavenis ti enoo - kalitera na to pame me vasi to Slavos ke miSlavos. --Telex 13:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endax, tora pu to kitazo, den ine toso ashimo. --Telex 13:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min kanis alli epanafora - ya ton gnosto mireo kanona. Tha to allaxume (an ine) otan to ehun xehasi oli. --Telex 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Katalauenw auta pou me lete, kai sas euxaristo gia tis sumboules. Aplos neuriazw otan vlepw ti grafoun oli autoi oi ilithioi giati tin istoria mas. DRMAKA 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Sampras

Hi Miskin, Pete's ethnicity or decent should be mentioned further into the article but not in the header unless some VERY unusual situation per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) exists. Check out other bios of famous "Greek-Americans" If you find any others listing that "label" in the header please let me know...so I can edit them :) Thanks and please feel free to discuss this further!--Tom 00:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

Hiya; just noticed you have started slavery in ancient greece article - I'm almost complete on translating the French FA at user:Bridesmill/Sandbox, should be posting it in a few days.Bridesmill 02:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! min anisyxeis. to anestrepsa kai to exw sti lista mou. exw varathei na prostathw na pisw editors na dextoun ta logia twn arxaiwn istorikwn (giati, polu apla, den mporoun na kanoun alliws!). as kratisoun tin POV gia ton eafto tous i tin selida tous... --Hectorian 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

On 11-May, you nominated the redirect Portal:Macedonia for deletion (or rather you re-nominated it after Freakofnurture's de-nomination). However, you did not finish the nomination. An rfd2 tag is supposed to be placed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion (WP:RFD). This is to allow the nomination to be discussed and a consensus reached. I have listed this redirect at WP:RFD. You may wish to provide your rationale for deleting. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greece questioned over its ethnic Macedonian minority

According to the Friday 19 May 2006 edition ofKathimerinithe President of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) Branko Crvenkovski raised for the first time the issue of a “Macedonian” minority living in Greece. “In Greece, there are a substantial number of people who individually feel like representatives of the Macedonian people,” he said. By late last night, the Foreign Ministry had not responded to his comments. Apostolos Margaritis 09:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is (pre)election period in fYRoM... talk to +MATIA 09:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time they've made such allusions and claimed that there are between 230,000 and 270,000 "Macedonians" living in northern Greece. Of course, when they claim there is a "Macedonian" minority in Greece, then it gets written in Wikipedia articles. When Greek government officials claim there is a Greek minority in FYROM [20][21], mentioning it gets reverted. This is how fair the universe is ;-) --Telex 10:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Τι ήταν αυτό; --Telex 20:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Μην ξεχάσεις το 3RR. Ισχύει παντού. --Telex 22:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It(the last citation) does, but so be it, let it stay like this. its good to find a solution in between rather than rv'ing it every hour. Greetings! --Makedonia 13:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanariotes

Sorry I got misinterpreted. First of all: I have not said that boyars in modern Romania were "Romanians" in the sense that "Phanariotes are Romanians". I had stressed the fact that ethnicty is always a matter of choice, and that the Etaria was the very first group to propose that such a choice is to be made (leading to the complications of the "Magali Idea" when ethnonationalism was introduced in the Balkans). A Greek identity at the time was very inclusive, and ammounted to an "Imperial identity" (a lot of "Phanariote" families spoke Albanian or turned to speaking Romanian, including most of the nobilty in Wallachia and Moldavia after 1821; for your information, those I was referring to have direct lineage from Phanariotes). You see, such choices split the Phanar community. If the Eteria was a Phanariote society (which is and isn't true), this still does not make sense of the fact that the main target of their attack in Wallachia was the Phanariote Scarlat Callimachi, that this attack saw them in a tight alliance with traditional Wallachian families, and that their ally in Moldavia was nonetheless a Phanariote. Even the murky state of that proto-nationalism is maid painfully obvious by the fact that Ypsilantis ruled the Danubian provinces as "Greek ones" - since Byzantine and Orthodox were closely related to what "Greek" meant (hence "Megali Idea"). In that sense, not even Eteria filled the modern meaning of "Greekdom" - for am I now living in the Greek province Wallachia was intended to become? Furthermore, the same Byzantine inheritance was appropriated before by Wallachian Princes who were neither Greek nor Phanariote (given its status symbol, and given the fact that ethnicity was a non-sequitur back then). Go ahead and add info about careers of Phanariotes as administrators of the Ottoman Empire - I have never implied that would not be important (although I see no reason for another article). Again, the same goes for any "Romanian ethnicity" or other Balkan one back then. Indeed, it is the case for most ethnicities in the world. Hope you see that my point was not about how Phanariotes were "Romanians", but about how absurd the task of attributing nationality was when nationality was just being invented. Add to this my resentment for the over-simplications provided by any ethno-nationalism, including my own country's. Dahn 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Mikin, this is not about "how Romanian they were". Phanariotes were many things and became many things; out of these, "Greek" and "Romanian" presented themselves as choices after 1821. Most chose to be Greeks, but reference to "Greeks" before that actually refers to Christian Orthodox who had a fond memory of the Christian Empire. More or less. Again, "Greek" in the modern sense is a non-sequitur for pre-1821, as is "Romanian". Lest for the few intellectuals who though of and invested in more tight terms, this is the case throughout the Balkans, or indeed throughout Europe. The term of preference was "Christian", and the Byzantine legacy was free to claim (this is why Russia actually had a project of owning part of Anatolia, and the entire Balkan Peninsula - even this little detail should make you ponder, since both the Russian-allied Eteria and a Russian diplomat named Capodistia were initially supportive of that). Even in the Principalities, the usual "anti-Greek" discourse actually belonged to families who were just as "Greek" (meaning that they had come from Constantinople), and were threatened by the newcomers; them and their Wallachian equivalents had a single and pertinent voice (which is why Tudor came to Bucharest, and not Callimachi). The cause of Greek independence came smack bang in the middle of that (and, ultimately, in a formula that rejected all Byzantine legacy - if perhaps only because it was made to); from that moment on, the Balkans realined themselves with "modernity", and this is why we are free to go out and baptize our ancestors. Consider taking a look over this: Talk:Vasile Lupu#He was Bulgarian, and see why I have trouble not being irritated by such presumptions. Bottom line: this is not a playground for nationalisms, and I hope that you will get to see what I have been trying to tell you from the very first moment we exchanged msges - When debating to me, you are not confronted with my attempt to endorse "my people", but with my attempt to be objective. If you still think that I cannot be objective because I am Romanian, despite the fact that I have proven I did not use my "Romanianness" to create an alternate reality, then we have nothing to talk about. However, if you see my point, then see what it adds to or subtracts from your theory. Dahn 00:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Greek" in that they spoke Greek (which most cultured Orthodox did). "Greek" in that they associated with the Byzantine Empire (which many tended to view as "Greek" - an identity which did a lot of retrospect itself). "Greek" in that, since they co-incided with nationalism, most of them chose to become Greeks in the modern sense (while others remainded fine and dandy in their positions of power in the Ottoman Empire and Wallachia/Moldavia. Note that I do not object to their definition as "Greek" (and have not removed it from the original text - especially since I believe the linked article at the end of Greeks should explain the complications), but to indication that Byzantine=Phanariote=modern Greek, in a sense that would monopolize history for a post-factum reality. Keeping to specific terms, Phanariotes were Phanariotes. Cosmopolitan and attracted to a Greek identity that began by beeing much more inclusive. Dahn 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please point me to wher I would have indicated that the Eteria was a society of "Greeks from the Danubian Principalities". Frankly, Miskin, you either don't read my posts or your version of nationalism actually fails to make you aware of the fact that the world extends a bit beyond the censorship of "in the defense of my people". Is it not clear by now that I do not support another version of nationalism, but rather no version of nationalism? Is it not clear that we are not having this conversation because of my determination to make Romania "own" the Phanariotes? (Before you go and accuse me of "lack of knowledge of Greek ethnicity and history" - which cointains a sophistry - do the very least and inform yourself abot how a Romanian nationalist would "hand out" the Phanariotes to the "Greek ethnicity" at any given time. Why, you ask? Because Romanian nationalists view "Phanariote" as a pejorative, and a pejorative nuance is always born "away, somewhere, but not where my people is at". Read the final paragraphs of the article for that.) Dahn 01:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really try to establish if I my point is rendered correctly. You tell me then: what is it that I believe the Phanariotes where, according to my alleged focus on Romanian history? What is the staus that I am giving them and you believe is inaccurate? (Note: due excuses, but my answer to your reply may be postponed until tomorrow, since I'm getting quite sleepy). Dahn 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "pretend to be an expert on Greek history". I believe I, however, that I am perfectly qualified (as any litterate person should be) in discerning nationalism and modern-day criteria from medieval reality. Dahn 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Deletion

Please visit [22] and weigh in! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers

Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you took part to the discussion. Would you mind vote?--Panairjdde 09:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Cyril and Methodius

If we leave the ethnicity aside why did you destroy THE WHOLE structure of the article reverting to something that is rather messy and confusing. If there any langugae mistakes why did you correct them (if you know how)?

Also the first sentence in the MUST state what they are most famous for - the Glagolitic (Slavinc)alfabet. Why your articel begings with "Greek brothers who became missionaries in Khazaria" and then as some much less important you state that they meanwhile implemented the Glagolitic alfabet BUT this is NOT certain!!! How come their ethnicity is CERTAIN and their deeds ARE NOT???? Or you are Greek yourself ??? That would explain everything! Cyril and Methodius mean a lot to the Slavic people but nothing to the Greeks, we know that but why the article should bear a Greek accent???? Best Regards, Nedko Dimitrov 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey Miskin,

Could you join the discussion here? It's concerning whether or not the UN has recognized the Pontian Greek Genocide. Thanks, and Χαίρετισμούς. ;) —Khoikhoi 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ξέρεις κανέναν ουδέτερο αδμινιστράτορα να μας βοηθήσει να βρούμε λύσεις στα άρθρα για την Γενοκτονία των Ελλήνων του Πόντου και για τους Αγίους Κύριλλο και Μεθόδιο. Εγώ έχω κουραστεί με αυτούς που δεν έχουν καταλάβει πως δουλεύουν τα πράγματα εδώ. --Telex 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan Turks

And? :) (cretanforever) (Sorry, my signature doesn't work for some reason) :)

There's some pro-truth stuff in recent edits I made like Ege University, Güzelçamlı, Ayvalık which happens to do justice to Greek things&people (with a few pokes here&there due to circumstances, I am watching to see the day a Greek eye will detect them like lightning:), but calling a spade a spade in general. (cretanforever) (Sorry, my signature still doesn't work)

Min tu ksanaapandisis, tha fiyi. --Telex 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Apostoli ton Slavon

Yati se pirazi. Tin alithia den egrapsa - des tin proti paragrafo sto arthro Samuil of Bulgaria. Etsi ekana ke sto allo. Den katalaveno yati se parizi toso - den ipame oti ine, ipame oti afti tin apopsi ehun (ke oti o ipolipos kosmos tus ehi grammenus). --Telex 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya diavase kalitera [23] - i piyes ya tis theories, eki ine. --Telex 20:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ego nomizo oti to WP:CITE ehi ikanopiithi. Telos pandon - kane oti thes (tha ipostirixo). --Telex 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

You are on POV pushers list because of denying other people opinions, thus violating WP:NPOV. Nedko^{self bias resist} 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Des...

... edo. --Telex 14:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prospathisa na vgalo tin propaganda alla apetiha :-( Des tis sizitisis edo ke edo na dis ti pragmata grafun. --Telex 15:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Den milao ti glossa tus. Ego ksero liga bulgarika (opos lei ke sti selida mu edo). Ego haraktirizo afti tin glossa "slavomakedonika, i bulgariki dialektos tis dikitis Makedonias", afti ti haraktirizun "makedonika". Tha su po kati, alla mi to pis puthena, alla idia glossa ine. I "Makedoniki glossa" ine kathara bulgarika, mono pu ehun andikatastisi to bulgariko gramma щ (sht) me шт (sht), paralipun to ъ (schwa), ke ehun isayi ena soro latinikes lexis sti thesi ton slavikon (ke alles mikres allayes). --Telex 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eho Arvanitiki katagogi ap' tin plevra tu patera mu, ke eho singenis pu milane arvanitika kala (oli ine pano apo 70 omos). Ksero liga arvanitika, ke ta alvanika miazun pio poli sta arvanitika apo ta skopianika sta bulgarika. Fysika, to pragma theli meleti - den yinete na mathis glossa alios, ara prepi na prospathis na diavazis kamia alvaniki efimerida pu ke pu, ke na ta sinithisis. Distihos, ya ta alvanika, opos ke ya ta skopianika ke ta bulgarika, den iparhun vivlia sto thema. To poli poli na vris kanena lexiko. --Telex 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diavase afti ti sizitisi an thes na yelasis (yinete kalo eki pu beni o Vlatko): Talk:Macedonian language/Archive03#Future tense. --Telex 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To skeftomouna gia ora, alla imoun apasxolimenos. tora...voila! --Hectorian 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha...join the club:)...(isws oxi toso gi' afton, oso gia ekeinon pou grafei sto talk tou arthrou gia tous anthrwpous edw pou menw-katalaves pistevw-milame gia polu ksylo!!!!!) --Hectorian 02:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gia ton Pmanderson milaw. --Hectorian 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A ruler named Nicolae Mavrogheni

I plan to start an article on Nicolae Mavrogheni, ruler of Wallachia between 1786 and 1790. Tell me, Miskin, what do your sources say of him? Because I typed search in google for Nicholas Mavrogennis, but he did not come up. Please, when you provide his name in Greek (and the spelling of it in the Greek alphabet, if possible) in your answer, could you make sure that it is backed by sources and in use, and not a speculation on what it ought to be? Thank you. Dahn 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-page

I created a new sub-page: User:NikoSilver/List of POV edits by Slavomacedonians. Feel free to post all relative garbage in an organised manner, just for the record. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Δες αυτό αν μπορείς. --Telex 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stamata na kanis epanafores se afto to arthro, yati etimazete na se karfosi - des ti lista tu. --Telex 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tria ehis, ke se ehi idi karfosi. Mi xana tropopiisis ti selida kalu kaku. --Telex 23:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gia afto pou me rwtises, sumfwnw ki egw. etsi eprepe na einai apo tin arxi... --Hectorian 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An thes na yelasis, des auto. Des ta ola ;-) --Telex 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rsp

[24] NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Regarding your comment it is not merely my opinion, I removed something that was quite a sweeping statement and was completely unreferenced. The statement that during most of its history it was known to its Western contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks" or the "Empire of Constantinople", needs vefification otherwise it is merely conjecture and should not be included. If you can find a verifiable reference I will have no problem with the statement being there. Roydosan 08:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite wrong about the Byzantines being Greeks. Despite what people in the West may have called them they were Romans:

Although the word 'Byzantium' has long been in use amongst scholars and laymen, its circulation masks the fact that the eastern Roman empire employed a complex metanarrative that enabled its citizens to call themselves Romans (Rhômaioi / Rhômioi). This involved identification with the legacy not only of the Roman Empire of Augustus and his successors, but also of other universal metanarratives such as that of the Hellenistic world and of the Judaeo-Christian religion. Rome as a political construct is associated by most people today with something specifically Latin, something that has to do with the city of Rome. This popular Latinised conception of Rome has to be a matter of concern to the historian precisely because it highlights a misconception that can affect -- here and now -- crucial choices in the realm of historical and archaeological research, and political choice and action. As concerns the Romanisation of the East, no constructive statements can be made if Roman is taken exclusively to mean Latin. Even less sense can be made, if the Roman is studied and treated as a separate entity from the Hellenistic. And no sense can be made of the eastern Roman Empire if it is always to be thought of as being 'Byzantine', precisely because there has never been a person who considered her/himself as Byzantine.

The East-West dilemma is best witnessed by taking modern Greece as an example. In Greece, a bewildering network of metanarratives co-exist, mostly because the imposition of Western cultural norms and historical theories from the eighteenth century onwards has twisted the once predominant metanarrative of Roman and Orthodox (expressed in Greek by the complex term Rhômiosyne) out of all recognition. The eastern Roman medieval Greeks have been isolated from the national consciousness because they are 'Byzantines' and not Hellenes, because when they are called Rhômaioi/Rhômioi (Romans) they are associated with Latins or modern right-wing romantics, and especially because they represent a perceived medieval mindset that the West has damned once and for all. Of course, the modern 'ancient' metanarrative now has a life all of its own and its most enthusiastic champions are Greek rather than Philhellenes from the West (for a well intentioned but limited analysis of the modern Greek historical consciousness, see Herzfeld 1986, 1987). This has, however, led to a peculiar situation. As far as I know, Greece is the only country in Europe with such a poor, incoherent popular conception of its medieval past. Today, it has to live out an antiquarian metanarrative fabricated for it by the West and by effete eighteenth- and nineteenth-century philhellenism (on which, see Alcock 1993: 3; Holden 1972; Constantine 1984) 1

Roydosan 11:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't

...remove historical names from Greek place name articles. They belong at the top, just like any other article like Lvov or Oradea. If we have the Greek and Armenian names for about half of Turkish city articles, why should we make an exception when it comes to Greece? Historical names are helpful, please don't remove them from the top. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just take a look at the contributions of this user. He tried to remove the historical names, but I stopped him. The Greek names are at Izmir, Trabzon, etc. Feel free to add them to any cities you feel are appropriate. —Khoikhoi 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just proved to you that the Greek/Armenian names are at tons of Turkish city artciles. Check Ormands' contributions. —Khoikhoi 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not that recent, and the user is the only one who's ever cared about the names, and he hasn't edited in months. As for Istanbul, I personally wouldn't try it on that page. You'll notice that when there are too many historical names, they can be added in a separate section. Anyways, I just suggest you try adding it to smaller Turkish cities. Should the Turkish name be added to Athens, for example? —Khoikhoi 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Macrakis already answered it. He said, "Ottoman placenames in both Rumeli and Anatolia are pretty much the same as modern Turkish, modulo spelling".

But Miskin, you're looking at things from only one point of view here. Do you think they teach kids about the Armenian Genocide in Turkey? And who cares what they think? Please don't remove the Turkish names from all Greek articles. If you do that then someone will remove all the Armenian and Greek names from Turkish articles and we'll have a campaign of history-erasing, and that's something that I don't think anyone wants. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, when will you realize that it's not an attempt at nationalist land claims, but that the names are actually...useful? I already explained to you that you won't have much luck on a high-traffic page like İstanbul, but you probably will on Elazığ. Why don't you try the smaller cities, what's so hard about that? Also, if you remove all the Turkish names, then someone will have an excuse to remove all the Kurdish, Greek, and Armenian names from Turkish city articles. Yes, the world would be a much better place if there was less ethnic resentment. —Khoikhoi 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Su eho stili e-mail. --Telex 09:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POLL

No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:

Improvement of the <ref> function.

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des

An thes na yelasis, des auto. I propaganda den ehi oria! --Telex 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! - Carthage

Ok - first of all, I tend to agree with your apparent viewpoint. I think there is good archeological evidence to support that viewpoint. Not prove it, but support it.

I wasn't asking for citations, but I was cleaning up a whole mess of ^{[citation needed]} tags into a single, cleaner template.

Now - people asking for citations is perfectly valid. Ripping out tags that ask for them is not. It's a case of either "put up or shut up". If there is a reference included later in the article (or in the refernece section), then add it into the text: (see blah blah blah) or even a <ref></ref>^[1] tag.

If you're frustrated with some of the political/historical revisionism threatening the page - then well, so am I - but people asking for citations is not abuse, and providing citations shuts them up pretty quickly, and as ideally Wikipedia articles are supposed to be cited and footnoted, it improves the article overall.

Besides, if someone asks someone else for citations, and the author cannot provide them, maybe the point doesn't belong there. You may the one wanting supporting evidence for something you don't think is the truth, next time, after all. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me make one thing Absolutely clear:

I am not now, and I have never been, arguing the point that child sacrifice did not take place in Carthage

I guess you weren't around for the last edit war, when I was fighting your point of view. See Talk:Carthage/Human Sacrifice if you don't believe me. You do not have to convince me of your viewpoint, ok?

As to references: actually, you didn't add this as a reference/link to the page. You added this, in this edit here, which is now broken.

The link you added was a lecture summary, and had one unreferenced line

Carthaginians clearly practiced child sacrifice (ev. from burials in Carthage and Sardinia)

in support of

Modern archeological excavations have been interpreted as confirming Plutarch's reports of Carthaginian child sacrifice[6]. In a single child cemetery called the Tophet, an estimated 20,000 urns were deposited between 400 BC and 200 BC, with the practice continuing until the early years of the Christian period. The urns contained the charred bones of newborns and in some cases the bones of fetuses and 2-year-olds. These remains have been interpreted to mean that in the cases of stillborn babies, the parents would sacrifice their youngest child. There is a clear correlation between the frequency of sacrifice and the well-being of the city. In bad times (war, poor harvests) sacrifices became more frequent, indicating an increased assiduousness in seeking divine appeasement.

Carthaginian votive stelae (several in Egyptian style) display a priest carrying a living child, apparently to sacrifice.

Recent evidence from the island of Motya (off Sicily) suggests that child sacrifice did indeed take place, the remains in the sacred cemetery showing that children buried there were all males aged between two and six. This is consistent with the common (ancient) Middle Eastern custom of sacrificing the first-born son.

Their bones showed no evidence of chronic disease, suggesting that the children did not die of natural causes. Whilst bone analysis cannot rule out all common diseases that killed children in that era, quickly or slowly, an ordinary cemetery populated with numerous burials over a period of a few generations should contain many bones showing evidence of disease.

Yes, I did re-add the citations request because I believed that it was an insufficient reference for that section (one line for all that).

However, from your comments, it looks like you perhaps didn't put up the refernce which you thought you did? It may have been a simple error? I don't know.

Regardless, I am not arguing against your viewpoint, and I am not saying there is no evidence. I did think that a single line was insufficient citation for that section. If you found that offensive, I apologize. Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog)

12:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

kir Miskin in Piombino

You reckon we should insert your finding of Karelia in the Piombino wipedia article; Was it an empty box left behind by a Greek cigarette smuggler maybe? Just joking. BTW What were you exactly doing ( trespassing?) in Piombino. Just joking again not to worry. But come over to User_talk:Aldux#Basta_colla_tua_grecofilia where add more details to my Florence Greek encounter. Apostolos Margaritis 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and another Poll...

Hi. There's a debate about how much "X-ian" one must be in order to be considered "X-American" (or X-Yian for that matter) and be categorized as such. The poll is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Kindly weigh in! :NikoSilver: 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Well, that'll be the first article we're not bitching too much about! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm from...

Hi Miskin. No, I'm not from London - I'm from Birmingham. So although I look very Chinese, I have a broad Brummy accent which often makes people smile! Jenny Wong 14:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Polls that may be of interest...

Hey, kindly check:

Thanks. :NikoSilver: 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek and Turkish foreign placenames issues

Hi, you once participated in discussions of when and how to include foreign placenames in Greek and Turkish geographical articles. There's now a centralised discussion at Wikipedia:Greek/Turkish naming conventions, and your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic Greek language

Can you fix the double redirects as well? Thanks (BTW, it's time to archive your talk page). —Khoikhoi 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pontian title revisited

Hi. Note: I'm neither Greek nor Turkish, nor do I have any knowledge whatsoever about the alleged incidents. I do, however, have an opinion on the title of Pontian Greek Genocide. I read through the talk page, and there was one suggestion that was mentioned that seemed to be overlooked by all parties: "Pontian Greek Genocide Thesis". The word "thesis" is extremely neutral. I've added my points to the most recent discussion there, but bear in mind that I won't discuss the issue any further on that page. Please, however, feel free to discuss on my talk page. --Storkk 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Καλώστονα κι'ας άργησε

Ζήτησες μια εξακρίβωση. Θα τη βρείς στο Macedonia (terminology), το οποίο έγινε φήτσουρντ! Στο λέω πριν στην κοτσάρουνε...•NikoSilver• 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll only know for sure when we hear what Cretanforever has to say about it. Regardless, I apologize for being rude—I've just been under a lot of stress recently. —Khoikhoi 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reogranisation of Greek language articles

Hi again, re. your refactoring of material from Greek language: as you know I'm very much in favour of a solution like what you're doing, but you're aware there's currently again a controversial discussion about that, right? I don't think it's safe to assume consensus for that move at the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece

The project is just created! In its project (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece) what is already done and what are the thoughts for the future.
Having noticed your interest in article connected with Greek History, I thought you might be interested to participate and contribute.--Yannismarou 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na pas na gineis melos amesws! :-) •NikoSilver• 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Den exo kapoio idiaitero provlima. Apla pistevo oti einai kalytera to arthro na exei to onoma pou xrisimopoioun kai xrisimopoiousan (kai to akouo se ekpombes kai se ellinika kanalia). to thema einai oti eixe allo noima tote (simaine apla 'mousoulmanoi') kai auto prepei na einai fanerotato sto arthro! an omes einai toso duskolo gai tous agglophonous na katalavoun ti diafora, as metonomastei... alla kati prepei na ginei kai gia tous Muslim Cretans sti suria... pws mporoun kai aftoi na legontai etsi, xwris na exoun sxesi me aftous stin Tourkia? Hectorian 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai kati asxeto: i left a msg on Khoikhoi's talk [25]... why should there be a redirect? noone calls the Patriarchate 'Patriarchate of Istanbul'... Hectorian 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Den ksero pws tha ginei, alla to Patriarch of İstanbul tha papsei na yparxei estw kai san redirect! exeis kapoio provlima me afto? Hectorian 02:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EP

I've always been curious to know how some people can get their back up so much over edits that happened months ago. That was back in May, for heaven's sake! Besides, you still ought to have a reference. I've never heard him called the Greek Patriarch. (Don't worry; I stopped caring about that article weeks ago and won't touch your edits. It just wasn't worth the effort. I don't even know why it's still on my watchlist.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Τουρκοκρητικοί

Your strange interpretation of Wikipedia polices is irrelevant here, but since you're "right on every single account", there's no point in arguing with you anymore. —Khoi khoi 03:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks again

Regarding comments like this: Please keep your tone civil during discussions. Disrespect of other editors is not tolerated. --InShaneee 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But please do attempt to word things more carefully in the future. --InShaneee 22:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ton karfwses? •NikoSilver• 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Ok I didn't mean to if I did, but where did I break the 3RR? Baristarim 23:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetarti

OK. den ixera oti exeis suneisferei poly sto arthro. apla, kapoia mou fanikan ligo perierga. telos pantwn, sou exw empistosuni. oso gia to epimaxo arthro, tha mporouse na metonomastei kai na mpoun oi tourkokrites ws mia paragrafos, idiaitera malista apo ti stigmi pou oi piges lene alla anti allwn... Mono pou den exw polu xrono gia na to kanw egw twra... Hectorian 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molis eida oti to meteferes... synepws, ola kala... Hectorian 10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing

Please stop your disruptive editing to a range of articles.. If you got some beef with the Turks, please slug it out somewhere else... Baristarim 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

I'm sorry if you see it that way, I just have a problem when people do things without consensus. I guess another thing that bugs me (I'm being honest) is that you seem to be unreasonable at times, such as the issue on the liberation/invasion of Crete, and that you tried to stop the discussion short by saying, "end of story". Anyways, I hope there are no hard feelings—I never wanted you to get blocked, but rather, I wanted us to discuss the title of this page instead of edit waring. —Khoi khoi 01:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever man, I've had enough conspiracy theories for one day. I wasn't even online when you got blocked, and the reason why I didn't reply to your comment is because of the {{busy}} template at my talk page. BTW, all you had to do was go to WP:RM in the first place and this whole dilema would've never happened... —Khoi khoi 01:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Miskin

If I may, I have reasons to believe that this is not the case. Take my word for it. •NikoSilver• 10:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??

May I ask why you like harrassing certain articles so much with such an unreasonable attitude? Please continue your work on JonBenet Ramsey, an article that you proudly have created or rewrote.. Baristarim 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to take some more of precious wikipedia space - I have been dying to ask: So how is the JonBenet article that you created or rewrote going?? It seems like just the article most educated people would be dying to have a look. We wouldn't want to be doing them an injustice, now would we?? :)))))))) Baristarim 06:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, btw, I heard somewhere [26] that you are a close friend of John Mark Karr, is that true?? In any case, I am logging off.. So take care!! Baristarim 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, I have been just joking around :)) Baristarim 18:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

I love you, too. ;-) —Khoi khoi 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested to A.G the title, Pontian Deportations - and they all lived happily ever after... I think this is quite funny, but for the fact that so many thousands were massacred and thousands more never lived 'happily ever after'. Politis 12:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ test

[1] test

[1]