User talk:Khirurg/Archive 2

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok

Ok, I am sorry; but you have to stop reverting in bad faith my edits. You may request inlines and I will give you. Reverting my edits in bad faith, is not better than calling you like that. Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no quid pro quo here. And why do insist on calling my reverts of you "bad faith"? They are not bad faith. On Origin of the Albanians, for example, I explained to you my reasoning on the talk page. I could also say the same thing about your reverts of me, but you don't see me acting like that. --Athenean (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness

Just to let you know that I have reported Interestedinfairness here. --Cinéma C 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interestedinfairness

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interestedinfairness. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we have another Interestedinfairness: User:Tibetian.. --Cinéma C 17:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was about to post on ANI myself, but I'll let you do the honors. He also pretty much admitted to being the IP that was disrupting the Kosovo talkpage. This is starting to become very disruptive. --Athenean (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that where we report Checkuser requests? I've never done that before though :S --Cinéma C 01:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My internet was down, otherwise I would have done it already. To report socks, it's best to go to WP:RfCU. If you've never done this before, it's best that I do it, and you can learn how do it by watching me (cause he'll be back again). --Athenean (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've checked it out, and yea.. it was best that you reported it, I wouldn't have known what to do :S You pretty much gave the strongest evidence, but I'll take a look if I can add anything to that. I hope these disruptions will stop, and I'm glad we agree on that. --Cinéma C 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So this is not the first case you open in vain, right? How long do you want to play this game? Just stop it please, your accusations make no sense at all. --Tibetian (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, why have you reverted my edit on the Kosovo Viyalet page? My edit broke no Wikipedia rules. Your explanation in the revert section was in my opinion inadequate and assuming bad faith. Please provide one for me here. Thanks, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)).

High

For your tireless contribution and your efforts in keeping a good faith policy over your noble work, I suggest your nomination as a knight-administrator to the Old Order Of The Good Faith (O.O.O.T.G.F.). Congratulations. --Factuarius (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (Some work to the tower may needed before the initiation ceremony)

Ha ha, thanks! --Athenean (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek Epirotes

I was thinking that in order to avoid confusion, there should be an article about Greek Epirotes, while the EPirotes article should be about all ethnic groups that have lived in epirus. It is the best solution. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that sounds like a total content fork. See WP:FORK. And as far as I know, I have never seen any sources mention such a thing as "Albanian Epirotes". --Athenean (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You still do not understand that "Epirote" is not a national term. Epirote=Epirote not Albanian or Greek exclusively. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is your own opinion. On the other hand, I have sources (4 of them) that attest to the exact opposite of what you are saying. I have yet to see a source that uses the term "Epirote" in a non-Greek or Albanian context. --Athenean (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You know very well they are not even close to reliable. Greek and totally unreliable sources, is all you brought, friend. Nothing more. Or do you actually think that in 2002 as one of your sources state there were 280,000 greeks in Albania, of whom only ~30,000 voted the greek minority party in 2009. Or is greek author Κασαββετης more reliable? --Sarandioti (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same ORguments over and over? --Athenean (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as you repeat the same unreliable sources of Κασαββετης CO. I have no problem repeating those same arguemnts that show the unreliability of your arguments. And you still haven't answered. --Sarandioti (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, Sarandioti, I Pakapshem, a Pristina Kosovar and a Gechingen!? Albanian. This is not contribution, this is an Albanian crusade against you. Is there any way to avoid this demonstration of brutal force in POV-pushing to a wiki article? Just wonder. --Factuarius (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources on "Epirus" in a non-Greek or Albanian context. [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pontos

Btw how is Pontos?--Sarandioti (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just want to thank you for your help in Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus (reached 'ga'). Let's see what's next on the 'ga' list.Alexikoua (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice of possible ARBMAC sanctions

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Kyrenia/Girne

Just to let you know that there is now a proper request to move the article back to Kyrenia --> Talk:Girne#Requested move. Green Giant (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

...

Athenean, I believe if we can resolve our differences here, there will be less disruption in the articles. What do you think? -- Mttll (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? I'm listening. --Athenean (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with the position of peripheral countries with respect to Europe. Also, let's keep it simple. -- Mttll (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very general to me, but ok. Do you have a specific proposal for a specific article? --Athenean (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking about something very general. In articles concerning Europe in any way, I have basically two definitions; one of them is this [4], and the other this [5]

Sometimes an article uses them both like here [6] and I find that inconsistent and hypocritical. Do you see what my point is? -- Mttll (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the "hypocrisy" you're talking about. The definition of the European continent in physical geography is clear. It is that map you have posted above. In articles that have a strictly geographical context, we should stick to the strictly geographical definition. So if Turkey's wine growing regions are in Anatolia, then they should be listed in Asia. Same with Cyprus. The definition of Europe in political geography is more complex and fuzzy. --Athenean (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

About hypocrisy, do you not see that Cyprus and Georgia are listed under Europe? -- Mttll (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, move them under "Asia". I will not object to that. But what I would object to is using that as an excuse to move Turkey's wine growing regions to Europe. That is simply geographically incorrect, plain and simple. Next. --Athenean (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be a valid excuse though, one could assume this definition was used [7]. Btw, can you help me out in that article now that you understand and agree with what I'm saying? -- Mttll (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? There is no valid excuse (and i use that word in its most negative connotation), it is geographically incorrect, period. The wine-growing regions of Turkey are in the Asian side, so they stay there. If you feel so strongly about Cyprus and Georgia, feel free to move them, I won't stop you. But it ends there. --Athenean (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if this is a clear cut geographical matter, how then Cyprus can ever be listed under Europe? No need to be aggressive, btw. -- Mttll (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being aggressive, sorry if I cam across that way. Like I said, within the wine-growing regions context, I have no problem listing Cyprus under Asia. It seems to me you are having trouble with two different users on that article, so you might want to discuss it with them. --Athenean (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Copy of my comments from WP:PERM Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done But with caution. This right really is not a big deal but does have some potential to damage. I note your historical blocks and your talk. I also note that you have reverted edits in the past with clear edit summary and have engaged in much discussion around your areas of interest. I'd advise extreme caution with the tool; clearly not productive edits are fine but continue to manually revert anything otherwise with the explnatory edit summaries your are used to. Please also note any admin can remove this tool at anytime if used poorly. See the main rollback page for more.

Understood, thank you. I only plan to use it in cases of obvious vandalism across multiple articles. If there is even the slightest doubt, I will refrain from using it. Thank you once again. --Athenean (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you will. Happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reporting repeated disruptions

You might like to know that I have reported 3 users (Lontech, Sulmues, Spanishboy2006) who are violating Wikipedia consensus on Kosovo to the ArbCom probation enforcement page. Feel free to leave any comments, if you'd like. All the best, --Cinéma C 02:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I found an interesting collection of references on a page titled ALBANIAN HISTORIANS: ALBANIANS DO NOT DESCEND FROM ILLYRIANS (http://www.geocities.com/aia_skenderbeg/albanian_sources.html). What do you think of these references, and if you agree, we could try adding them to the appropriate articles, providing a more NPOV perspective on the issue. --Cinéma C 05:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll look into it. We have to be careful with geocities-type websites, though. I tend to use google books, which gives printed material and as such is much harder to challenge. I have used material I have found on google books to make a number of changes to the Origin of the Albanians article. Let me know what you think. I also have a hunch this article is going to be targeted by nationalists in the near future. Take care, --Athenean (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry by User:Pantepoptes

good pick up. I had my suspicions too. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We should keep an eye out. He will almost certainly be back. --Athenean (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

yes one of the least subtle POV pushers I've ever seen. and resorts to personal attacks whenever you revert his changes. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Epirus (ancient state)

hellο there! Ι've recently created this article and made a wp:dyk prοpοsal. Βut there is a debate οn the hοοk. Yοur view wοuld be vital.thanksAlexikoua (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC restrictions

To me, this seems like the only option to get you to engage strictly in talk page discussion rather than edit warring. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL

A couple users didn't agree... and noted yours and your (friends) connected editors have violated 3RR as noted on the R1a1 history. Your and your friends were overturned because we agreed to be balanced, and not one-sided like you. Your making threats and POV pushing with your incorrect assertions of the figures, Trying to have an Eastern Europe origin and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE ALPHABET or YOUR ARE PERPETUATING VANDALISM (i.e Your edits with the Central Asia, Then Eastern Europe, The South Asia LOL ) Let's see here, main Region is Asia (southern part) and somehow the eastern part of Europe is ether Sandwich in between or ahead???? Yeah keep that in mind when you put your foot in your mouth. I will always be here protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, Regardless. Cosmos416 12:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek genocide

Just a note to say thank you for promptly reacting to vandalism and other mallacious attacks on the Greek genocide page. Your contributions are appreciated. Bebek101 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Athenean/evidence

If you don't mind, I'm going to comment-out the {{RFCU}} template there so that your subpage doesn't get categorized under open SPI cases awaiting clerk approval. Thank you, MuZemike 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the heads up. --Athenean (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was searching for 3 days this spi case in order to find a single evidence that makes Alarichus inccocent and a different person from Sarandioti, but fruitless. I'm curious to see his convincing arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Already there

List of ancient cities in Illyria mapped tooMegistias (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported

Sources are very clear and concise by Aigest. They have page numbers and ISBN numbers as well. Your nationalistic POV pushing has gone too far.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians

We were editing at the same time it seems and I removed this reference you added. Sorry! We can try to reinsert, but I also removed the sentence it was attached to for the simple reason that it was not needed: the whole article makes clear already that no one is certain that Albanian descends directly from Illyrian. Presumably though, this reference was arguing more than just that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for writing me. I was about to write to you. If you ask me, I think the sentence and ref should stay. Whether or not the Albanian language is of Illyrian stock is important to the article, and I don't think it is repeated elsewhere in the article. We can re-add it with either point #4 or #5 (I'm leaning towards 5). Thanks again.--Athenean (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-published book

I'm working on compiling a book containing information about almost all Non-indigenous ethnic groups living or working in Pakistan. The population of a particular ethnic group would be obtain respectively from their diplomatic missions in Pakistan including regions with significant populations, languages spoken and religious affiliations. I'm not very good with writing so it would be great, if you would like to collaborate with me.--116.71.53.25 (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

I believe it's time to improve this article. Any help would be vital.Alexikoua (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is high time that article was improved. I am going to start gathering sources. I think we should use Ancient Egypt, which is FA, as a model.

Nice

Hmm, nice of you to warn me, but I've made a single revert today and one yesterday (a different one). --Laveol ^T 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag-teaming is never acceptable. Even a single revert can be considered edit-warring if it's part of tag-teaming. --Athenean (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that was necessary, Athenean. It's pretty hypocritical to warn an user who has just warned another user and backed up every single of his two edits with solid arguments. You should probably turn to Megistias, he's the one with the three reverts in a little more than 24 hours.

P.S. I fail to see how a single revert can be considered part of tag-teaming. You do know that a single revert is done by a single user, right? Think about it. Todor→Bozhinov 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly is it tag-teaming? I've expressed my views on the subject, so has Todor. We're not a team and have our own right of editing, no? --Laveol ^T 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You and Laveol are both edit-warring and tag-teaming against Megistias. Come on, pretend, we know what's going on. We're all experienced users here. I've got a good mind to notify Moreschi about what's been going on in Thracians. --Athenean (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly is it tag-teaming? I've expressed my views on the subject, so has Todor. We're not a team and have our own right of editing, no? --Laveol ^T 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's ask Moreschi and see if he thinks you are tag-teaming, shall we? --Athenean (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me with justice :) You sound like Moreschi is going to come over with a razor-sharp chainsaw and teach me not to misbehave ever again! :D Wikipedia doesn't work that way: the ultimate goal of a discussion is to reach a decision that works, not to turn to the big bad admins to crush a rebellion. Todor→Bozhinov 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you Todor, chill. We are all friends here. I just see a rather heated edit-war brewing in that article and think that notifying Moreschi would help. He was instrumental in pacifying a similar edit-war in Orpheus and an even worse one on Souliotes. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't take me too seriously, mate, I tend to make a bad joke or two :) But really, you needn't have warned me or Laveol, it was pretty apparent it was Megistias who was being disruptive and acting against consensus. Todor→Bozhinov 12:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

c-e

Hi there! Just wanna ask you if you have time for c-e job on Ioannis Giagkos, some sentences sound somewhat weird to me, but could be mine idea...Alexikoua (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Athenean (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus GA

As someone who's worked on the Cyprus articles, you might be interested in following the GA recommendations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyprus/GA1. Best, Vizjim (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --Athenean (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do my best, just added some citations in history section.Alexikoua (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Vikos-Aoos National Park GA

It's GA now, thanks a lot for the hand. It seems quite fair since it fell victim by disruptive spa activity in past.Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians Albanians

Hi,

I can provide you with a copy of the PDF file which refers to Albanians as Illyrians. The source is from: Maps Issued by the United States Government Bureaus January 1913. I can provide you with the file if you don't have access to the database where the source is located. Please let me know if you would like a copy or print screen of the content in question. Enjoy the rest of the weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpqgoog (talk • contribs) 10:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Antwerp Fine

I have nothing against the guy. Do you have any links pointing to an online full-view, restricted or even unavailable electronic version of the book? Guildenrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

I am not, but that does not mean it is not verifiable. As long as it has an ISBN, it is considered verifiable. --Athenean (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem help?

Hi. :) We've got a copyright problem listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 7 that has been cycling for a month. We could really use some help from somebody who reads Greek in determining if the article should be deleted. The article is Petroula Christou. It's tagged at the Greek Wikipedia as well: el:Πετρούλα_Χρήστου. We've been waiting to see if they delete it, but they haven't done anything definitive with it yet, and I can't read any discussion about it they might have had. Would it be possible for you to take a look at it and see if there's any clue what (if anything) they're doing about it? Alternatively, can you determine if it is an infringement of that source? If it's not convenient, please let me know, and I'll track down somebody else who reads Greek. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any sources in the Greek version. Or any article for that matter. I just see a link to a youtube video and the big copyvio notice. In which case it is a no-brainer. --Athenean (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the article isn't up for deletion for poor sourcing. It's up for deletion as a copyvio, and in order to delete it under policy as a copyvio I need to be able to verify infringement specifically of this and the infobar on the side of the Youtube page. It looks visually similar, but somebody who can read the text can probably more easily determine how close the two are. As I mention, we had been planning to delete our version if the Greek Wikipedia version is deleted, but they've taken no action in a month, and if I can close it out here simply by finding a Greek reader we don't need to keep it hanging around while we wait. Are you able to compare the text? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am. The texts are identical, word for word. It's a cut-and-paste job. --Athenean (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) I'll close it accordingly. I appreciate your assistance! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Athenean (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Apollinaire

How come this dummy found IT's way to Wikipedia [8], calling Apollinaire (Moreas' friend and collaborator, by the way) non rs? [9], [10], [11], [12]Guildenrich (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a article

Hi. Saw your recent edit to R1a. As a recent editor on the article your perspective on the talk page discussions right now would be appreciated. Things are slightly messy, but a few outside views might work wonders. I am writing to all recent editors of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but the discussion seems very long and very technical. At which subheading should I begin reading to get up to speed on the dispute? --Athenean (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it looks hard to get into but that is just because of the failed discussions on the talkpage. I have tried to make it easy with a diff, so that you can compare two proposed versions of the R1a article. Most differences of opinion have been to do with wording, and the question of what is encyclopedic. For example, is the word haplogroup jargon that should be removed from this article about a haplogroup? See [13].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Some help

Hi Athenean. I wrote a new article about the Phiale of Megara which in my opinion is a very significant finding about the origin of the ancient Macedonians (together with the Pella curse tablet). Since you are active in the current discussion in the Macedonia (ancient kingdom) discussion and you are interested about could you plz have a look in the Phiale of Megara article? I am not sure what Fut says, but he mark it for speedy deletion. The txt is indeed from the Pella curse tablet talk but I wrote it there also, and then I decided that it would be good as a nucleus of an article, thus the article. In fact the first paragraph of the Contents, dating and significance section is of the prof. O’Neil of the Sydney University, I added the ref, and I am telling that also in the article's txt, so I am not sure what's wrong with it. Can you help me about? Thanks in advance. --Factuarius (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, Ath.. I've created an article about a modern Greek dialect, but I have the feeling that it needs some additional copy-edit job. Can you give a hand, when you have time? Hope your knowledge on linguistics is better than mine. If you find it interesting enough we can propose an appropriate dyk hook.Alexikoua (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Athenean (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Economopoulos (PS)

Thank you again for your offer. One more request: It would be good if you could type in the actual title of this book, complete with a transcription; and if you can Google more publication details for it, the ISBN would be welcome.

And now I really do have to rush off. See you later at Talk:Nikos Economopoulos, perhaps. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand. Type in where? The title is already in English it seems. Can you please clarify a bit? Best, --Athenean (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the web page I've linked to (both above and in the article) talks of "Nikos Economopoulos / Magnum 100 photographs, 1979-1999", it depicts a book whose cover says [what appears to be] the same thing in Greek and only in Greek, and for the languages [plural] of the book the web page specifies just "EL", which I suppose means Greek. So I've no reason to think that "Nikos Economopoulos / Magnum 100 photographs, 1979-1999" is the actual title; instead I guess that it's no more than a nonce gloss of the title. An English gloss is convenient for people who can't guess at the meaning of the original title, but it makes life difficult for people wanting to specify it in (for example) a library OPAC. I'm reluctant to hunt and peck more than a couple of Greek characters: I might get something wrong. If you could type it in correctly, that would be most appreciated. Sorry for not having been clearer the first time. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I typed the title in Greek in google books (greek version) and the regular google. I got nothing for google books, and for the regular google I just got the Hellenic American Union website and this [14]. The heading for the column all the way on the left is "Code" but I don't see an ISBN anywhere. --Athenean (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Actually I guess it's merely a pamphlet rather than a book. Still, now we've proceeded so far: How is Φωτογραφίες best transliterated?

Continuing with the matter of books. . . .

1. That same source also lists something titled Ανάσα η Τέχνη τής Καρδιάς, which surprisingly is published by Polygram. I find only one Google hit for this, but when I click on the page that Google points to it doesn't appear there. Google claims to have cached the page but has not done so, so all that's visible is this snippet:

Hellenic Music download

... αποψεις αψογo! τη συνανταμε για δευτερη φορα σε δικα της τραγουδια μετα απο το "ανασα η τεχνη της καρδιας" το 1996,

...... παραγωγης ενδελεχεια φωτογραφιες νικος οικονομοπουλος ανδρεας σταυρινιδης 1cd 14 τραγουδια διαρκεια: 58:38 ...

www.hellenic-music.com

Can anything at all be inferred from this?

2. What is the book Τα μυστικά των μετοχών της Σοφοκλέους, ISBN 9606604624 (here at vres.gr)? (I have no idea what the title means, but the cover doesn't look like anything else by this photographer, and so I wonder whether it's by somebody completely different who just happens to share the same name.)

3. How about Ho kosmos tōn paidiōn: me aphormē mia phōtographia-- tou Nikou Oikonomopoulou (here at OPAC) -- is it a collection of teen writing with incidental photography by NE? (OCLC does not give the title in Greek script, and googling for both forms of the ISBN given at OCLC suggests that both are wrong.)

4. Or again, Κόκκινη κλωστή κλωσμένη - Λαϊκά παραμύθια και αφηγητές του Αιγαίου (here at vres.gr); does there seem to be a substantial contribution by NE?

5. Apo mēchanēs choros (Από μηχανής χορός) has two ISBN numbers (This page and this one of the retailer Vres.gr). Why is that, and what does the book seem to be about?

Many thanks for any time you can spend on this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• 0. It's best transliterated "Fotografies"
• 1. It's a bunch of google gibberish. I don't think anything can be inferred from it.
• 2. The title translates as "The secrets of Sofokleous St." Sofokleous St. is the street on which the Athens Stock Exchange is located and is a colloquial designation for the stock exchange. The books is about the Athens stock exchange, I doubt it has anything to do with the photographer.
• 3. "The world of children: With photography as a pretext -- by Nikos Oikonomopoulos" Seems like a photo collection by Nikos Oikonomopoulos about a school in Greece.
• 4. "Red thread snapped - Folk talkes and narrators of the Aegean" Illustrated by Nikos Oikonomopoulos. Seems like he has a significant contribution there. His photos illustrate the book.
• 5. "Dance ex machina". A photo album about Balkan Roma wedding dances. It's the same book, although I can't figure out why there's two ISBNs. The only difference between the two is the price.

Hope that helps. Athenean (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does; many thanks. I've done some quick updating and I'll continue once I've attended to certain real-world commitments. -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the follow-ups on numbers 3 and 5. The latter turns out to be simple: one's a paperback and the other's a hardback, or so I read on some web page after posting my question.

Remembering that I'm utterly ignorant of Greek, can you possibly satisfy my casual (not-so-encyclopedic) interest and explain (for dummies) the discrepancy between the initial "Oi" of his Greek name as transcribed, and the initial "E" of his name in roman script? Would the Greek pronunciation be more or less as in (English) "oil", "echo", or "eel"; or is there a dialectal variation?

Another mystery to me is the elusiveness on the web of second-hand copies of his books. But perhaps those who are lucky enough to possess them don't want to get rid of them, or more likely I just haven't a clue where best to look. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just got hold of a large and splendid book of the man's photographs. Directly from the Benaki Museum, or anyway via airmail from there. Not cheap, and airmail wasn't either, but I got my money's worth. (And if you too have spare money and shelf space, may I recommend Economopoulos, Photographer.)

In the back are two pages of potted bio and dry facts, Greek on one page, English facing it. Within the Greek ... er, something like bibliography of individual works, there appears Ανάσα, η Τέχνη τής Καρδιάς. Corresponding to it in English is "Breath, the art of the heart, Polygram, Athens 1997." So whatever it is, it's by him. The potted bio doesn't mention music or recordings at all. Mysterious. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd indeed. Sorry I don't know enough about the guy to help you. --Athenean (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, in response to your previous query, it is pronounced as in "eel". The "o" is silent in the "oi", though it wasn't waaaaay back in the day. Athenean (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the pronunciation tip. I think I'm through with interrogating you for now, but Cardinal Fang and I may be back later! -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

University

See the reply on my talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Himariote Greek dialect

On December 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Himariote Greek dialect, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

Hello Athenean. I noticed your recent revert on this article. I'm commenting only because I've seen this item be reverted before. The Queen is unquestionably giving the opinion of the UK government, i.e. the Prime Minister. (She does not say things like that as a private person). Possibly her comment is not interesting enough to deserve space, but her lack of political power is surely not an issue. Someone who has the patience to search for more citations will surely find that that is the official UK government position. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. The official British position would be best illustrated with a statement by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, rather than the Queen, wouldn't you agree? I'm frankly surprised that that's not already the case. After all, he's the one who attends summits and is part of the decision-making process, not the Queen. Shouldn't be too hard to find a sourced statement by Gordon Brown regarding the UK's position on this matter. I'll look into it. --Athenean (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

3m vs. 3,5vs.

Would you mind telling me why you replaced CIA factbook data with your own numbers out of the blue?--Muzakaj (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They aren't "out of the blue". If you had actually bothered to look at the source, I used the numbers from the Albanian national census. In wikipedia, we generally prefer national censi to the CIA world Factbook. That's because the Factbook is a tertiary source, and should only be used as a last resort, when other sources are not available. See WP:PSTS for more details. Look at any other country article, Greece, Turkey, etc...It's always the census. --Athenean (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't check the census is old. Saying "approximately" covers the nature of the source.--Muzakaj (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Athenean the Troll hunter. Even if they grow up like Hydra's heads, Athenean's club shows no mercy.Alexikoua (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Middle East Lead section

Hi, I saw you reinstated my edit to the lead of Middle East. It was reverted again so I invited the two reverters to a discussion on the talk page and proposed (hopefully) a compromise sentence that addresses the perceived Eurocentrism. So I'm inviting you to the discussion too. Thanks Jieagles (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Τις θερμότερες ευχές μου

Καλές γιορτές, γεμάτες ευτυχία, υγεία, επιτυχία και αγάπη απ' όλους και για όλους. Καλή συνέχεια λοιπόν και μπράβο για τη νηφαλιότητα και τη συγκρότησή σου--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Σ'ευχαρηστώ πολύ, καλές γιωρτές καί σ'εσένα. Ωραίο talkpage btw. Να'σαι καλά αδελφέ, Athenean (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Dear me... now where might I have seen this IP before[15] [16]? Well it looks like a potato, it swims like a potato and quacks like a potato... Would it be a potato potato?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

I see you are still dealing with potatoes:[17], [18], and potatoes and potatoes and er... potatoes? [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], most characteristically [32] [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]... and it goes on and on and on. I think you get the picture.

Hmmm... banned you say? [56], [57]

Ah, I made a mistake there. The 198 IP is User:Sulmues, who edits unlogged sometimes. I mistakenly thought it was Guildenrich, but it isn't him this time (same POV though). --Athenean (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, shear coincidence...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! It escaped me. I'm sure Moreschi would be very interested in this. --Athenean (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarisation

Read first the definition of weasel word and POV pushing before making baseless accusations. Also read up on history before denying that Western Thrace was part of Bulgaria between 1913 and 1919. Or that the Greece most of the Bulgarians from the region, many of whom returned in 1941. Kostja (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the high quality contributions

User:Athenean has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Athenean's day! You have made remarkable contributions to the project, and the editors and readers of those pages are and always will be grateful to you for them. We all look forward to seeing you return and continue in such development. Thank you again for your outstanding efforts at article development. Peace, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here. Sorry, a bit late this one.

Thanks for great advices!

		The Special Barnstar
		For extraordinary contribution in maintaining NPOV, and for great collaboration with other editors! And for the splendid advices! :) Tadija (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar! It's very nice of you. Best, --Athenean (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss Konica

Hi Athenean, please see discussion page of Konitsa (Talk:Konitsa). Even though I see that you and Alexikoua feel strongly about this, I think these towns in Chameria have been lived by both Albanians and Greeks historically. It's a lot of mixed population in these places (and I would include Zagoria btw). Excluding the Albanian name of the town isn't nice. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:I Pakapshem

Hello, Athenean. Hate to tell you this, but you missed the mark a bit by reverting his edits on Plaka as being that of a banned user. He isn't banned, only blocked 6 months. I undid your edit for now, and if you would like to discuss this further please come to my talk page. Thanks, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was somehow under the impression he was banned for good. Oh well. I suppose I can live with your revert. Thanks for letting me know. Just so you know though, this user has a history of trying to get others to do his reverts for him, since he spends so much time blocked. --Athenean (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Chrysoupoli

Dear Athenean,

I want to extra and reliable information about town of Chrysoupoli in Greece. I gave reliable sources and don't want to delete extra information about it from you. It was known as "Sarışaban" during Ottoman rule and was spelled as "Sari Saban" by Greeks during this time. This spelling was arisen from absense letters of "ı" and "ş", which are found in Turkish and Bulgarian alphabets, in Greek alphabet. Equivalents of "ı" and "ş" at Turkish alphabet are "i and sh" in English one and "i" and "s" in Greek one. Aim of Wikipedia is giving reliable information as long as, writing about past of it is right for me. You write about former Greek inhabitated places in Turkey and Bulgaria, so that I can write about former Turk inhabitated ones in Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc without make heroism. Turks lived in Chrysoupoli until population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923 and was replaced with Greeks from regions of Thrace and Black Sea.

Chrysoupoli ("Yellow City" in Greek) was occupied first by Bulgarians in First Balkan War in 1912. It was part of Greece since 11 July 1913 like Kavala, Drama and Serres (firstly occupied by Bulgarians) except Bulgarian occupation between 1941-1944. Its name was renamed as "Sapaioi" in 1913 and was given present name in 1929 like Eleftheroupoli (Pravishte, which was derived from Pravishta in Bulgarian, before 1913 and Pravi between 1913-1929). Former name of it was Sari Saban, which meaned "Yellow Sha'aban" in Turkish. Sha'aban is eight month of Islamic calendar before Ramadan and man name in Islamic World.

Even though I see that you and El Greco feel strongly about this, I think these towns in Greece have been lived by both Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians and Greeks historically. It's a lot of mixed population in these places (especially regions of Epirus and Greek Macedonia). Excluding the Turkish name of them isn't nice. Sincerely,--Cemsentin1 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I will explain to you my position on names. The way it works in Wikipedia with names mainly depends on what reliable English-language sources use. By this, I mean sources found from searches in Google Books and Google Scholar, NOT raw Google searches (these contain all kinds of junk). If a large enough, say ~10%, number of sources use a foreign name, then inclusion is warranted. For example, if searches on Google Books and Google Scholar show 1000 hits for "Chrysoupoli" and 100 for "Sarisaban", then I would consider including it somewhere in the article. An exception is Komotini, where the name is included in Turkish in the lead because of the large Turkish population. But a former Turkish population in my opinion is not enough to include the name in Turkish. For cities in Turkey where the Greek name is included, the situation is different: Many reliable sources refer to Izmit as Nicomedia and to Izmir as Smyrna. For a number of reasons, the English speaking world makes far more frequent use of the Greek names for Turkish cities than the Turkish name for Greek cities. Sorry if it seems unfair, but that is how English-language sources are, and we must respect this. Now, if a particular place used to be a Sanjak center, I suppose that information could also be included, although in the History section, not the lead. --Athenean (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern cyprus

Athenean, there is an IP at Northern Cyprus that is pushing some POV and unreferenced wording that seems too POV for the tone. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Seems like Moreschi semied the page before I got out of bed. --Athenean (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Afds

Word of advice: if you want to nominate a series of nearly identical articles to afd, please either start with a trial run or one or two to gauge consensus, or consider merging the whole lot into one discussion. Keeps things tidier, and the discussions less fragmented. henrik•talk 12:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I was wondering about that myself. Thanks. --Athenean (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Synvet's map is quite good for the purpose of balancing. The map by Stanford has already been denounced as being extremely inaccurate by multiple editors. Look at Demographic history of Macedonia for a large collection of maps from the period and you would see that Stanford's map is a complete outlier for all of them. Kostja (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about the Ravenstein map. Basically, if you're going to have the Ravenstein map somewhere, you should also have the Stanford map. And you still haven't answered my question about why you have the Ravenstein map appear twice in Treaty of San Stefano. Not only is it redundant, but it messes up the article formatting as well. Athenean (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You could say so, but the fact is that the Ravenstein is very similar to the map by Ami Boue, Mackenzie and Irby, Lejean, the Austro Hungarian map and the map of the Slavic Peoples in the Balkans (all of them can be seen here). Most maps published between 1878 and 1912 also mostly agree with Ravenstein . Only the Synvet map suggests a substantial Greek population in the interior of Bulgaria, but certainly no to the extent of Stanford. Kostja (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't. The Ravenstein map shows Macedonia almost entirely Bulgarian, which none of the other maps do. Which is why you like it so much. And I note you are one revert away from breaking 3RR on several articles, particularly Eleftherios Venizelos, so I suggest you stop. It's pretty clear you are on a single-minded campaign to eradicate the Stanford map simply because you don't like it. Well, it can't happen. Where Ravenstein goes, Stanford goes as well. Both or neither. Enough already. Athenean (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ravenstein map does miss the large Muslim population in Macedonia. However, what all those maps have in common is that they don't show a significant Greek population north of the Thessaloni-Serres line in Macedonia, or north of a line running approximately from Drama to Dimotika (with the exception of the Maritsa valley up to Edirne, Eastern Thrace and the Black Sea coast. The Synvet map shows a significant Greek population in northern Macedonia and in the Rodopes, and also shows the substantial Muslim population in Bulgaria. Therefore, it's much better for balancing issues than Stanford's map with its Greek majority up to Vitosha and Albanian up to Radomir.

I think it would be better to discuss this issue here, instead of reverting, especially as you're closer than me to breaching the 3RR rule. Kostja (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement that this maps was used to determine the borders of Bulgaria is not sourced and therefore a Citation needed tag should be placed. Kostja (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? Athenean (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Berlin Congress and the Balkans one, but someone has already removed the statements so never mind. I've also added to all articles with the map that Stanford was pro-Greek with the source discussed at Talk:Treaty of San Stefano.

Yes, that's because it was removed by me. I am fine with your edits to the caption, btw. That is exactly what I meant by proper captioning. As long as our readers aren't led into thinking that Stanford is neutral or "correct", there shouldn't be a problem. I'm glad we could resolve this amicably. Athenean (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad as well. I've nothing against controversial information if it's presented in its proper context. Kostja (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So basically the Stanford map is too pro-Greek for your taste, and the Ravenstein map is too pro-Bulgarian for mine. That's why I propose we balance the one with the other, NOT balance Ravenstein with Synvet. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, if an average was made of all maps, the Greek-Bulgarian border line, so to speak, would be somewhere between Ravenstein and Synvet's map. A balanced answer to Stanford's map would be one that declared as Bulgarian all of Macedonia, including Thessaloniki and the Chalkidiki peninsula and extending into Thessaly. We don't have such an absurd map, but that's no reason to include its Greek counterpart.

By the way, you have violated the 3RR rule on Treaty of San Stefano. I don't believe in reporting other users but please don't accuse me either. Kostja (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's go on an article by article basis. I think you're OK with the reason I've included the Stanford map in Eleftherios Venizelos. I am Ok with your edit to the caption there, so I think that article should be fine now. Let's move on to the Congress of Berlin. As in Eleftherios Venizelos, the Stanford map played an important role there. I'm not saying the map is correct in any way. It is an outlier, but nonetheless the Greek position was based on it. So as long as we include it with a proper caption, as we did in the Venizelos article, and balance it with another map, I don't see why there should be a problem. I don't think I have violated 3RR anywhere, but we have both been edit-warring, so reporting each other will not do any good. Let's have a gentleman's agreement not to undo each other until we reach an understanding. Btw, the Ravenstein map pretty much shows all of Macedonia (region) as Bulgarian, so I would say it is an outlier as well. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that confrontations won't get us anywhere. My problem with the usage of the map in the Berlin congress and the Balkans map is that the claim about it being decisive during the Congress is simply not sourced. If such a source is provided, then it would be proper to add them there

In Megali Idea I suggest adding to the caption something to the effect that it was used during the Paris Peace conference to support Greek claims. In Treaty of San Stefano, well it obviously wasn't Stanford's map that was used (looks more like Ravenstein or Leejan) so perhaps it should be included only in connection with the Berlin treaty, if such a connection exists.

Ravenstein's map does show the southern parts of Macedonia as Greek. It does ignore the Muslim population in Bulgaria, something which most other maps and especially Synvet show. So it's an outlier in that sense. However, if you ignore all other ethnicities, Ravenstein does seem (at least to me) rather similar to most others in the Greek Bulgarian distribution. Synvet is again the least Bulgarian POV in this regard.

By the way, in Stanford's map there is a footnote by Greeks which says: "Includes kindred races identified by ties of language and tradition.". This leads me to think that Stanford used a rather broad definition of Greek, resembling the position of the supporters of the Megali idea. This is rather interesting, especially considering the time period when Britain was trying to stem Russian influence in the region and could throw doubts about the neutrality of this map. Kostja (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with Ravenstein's map is that he doesn't use stripes but rather solid colors. As we all now, Macedonia was very multi-ethnic at the time, and a map that doesn't reflect it seems problematic to me. Regarding the Congress of Berlin, I don't see why that needs to be sourced. If Jayron32 says so, that's good enough for me. You are correct that Stanford uses a loose definition of "Greek". That can perhaps be included in the caption. He was, by the way, a highly reputable cartographer back in the day. Ultimately, all these maps reflect the cartographer's judgement of who was what. But at least Stanford uses stripes, which Ravenstein doesn't. --Athenean (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to enter the discussion but will add a few things concerning the map of Stanford. First, the censuses in Eastern Rumelia show that the Greeks were by far a minority 40,000 out of 800,000; second, there is not a single peace of evidence to suggest that the Greeks were a majority in many areas shown as predominantly Greek-populated on that particular map. While concerning Macedonia you can find evidence,I don't say that it is 100% credible but still evidences of foreign authors to suggest that the Bulgarians were the largest ethic group in the region. You can see here in table 2.1 on page 41 the population that Erickson uses. Also, you can search for information about the elections of the first Ottoman national assembly in 1908 (I don't have the sources about that here but I know that the Bulgarians were the second largest represented group after the Turks). On the basis of that I think we can claim that Stanford is wrong. --Gligan (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest to move the whole discussion on one place (probably the talk page of the map) and to use mediation in order to clear that issue once and for all. --Gligan (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of these maps is to provide context, not because they are "right" or "wrong". Arguments based on maps' "rightness" and "wrongness" are irrelevant. As long as we explain that the Stanford map is pro-Greek, the reasons it is included in an article, and we balance it with another map, there shouldn't be a problem. I've explained this in more detail at Talk:Treaty of San Stefano. Mediation sounds definitely like a good idea. Athenean (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Really

Oh just like Factuarius but I guess you won't warn him now will you. It figures.--Avidius (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see you warning him in any way despite the fact that he was in the same position as me. So it seems that the aim here is to get the editors with different views shutout from the article so that he can continue pushing his POVs because it is alright to claim the Greek Army won the war but when someone dares cite Hall and say the Bulgarian Army had a more decisive role he is being criticized of making a " childish 'major wars' argument".At least we'll know from now on what double standards we should expect around here.--Avidius (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

City names

If you add the Greek names in the lead for Pomorie, Nessebar, Tsarevo, which I agree that should be there on the basis of historical Greek presence in those towns; I will add the Bulgarian names of Kastoria and Florina in the lead on the same basis. --Gligan (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Florina and Kastoria have multiple relevant foreign names (Bulgarian, Makedonskian, Albanian, Turkish), as well as interesting etymological histories. This is why they have separate name sections, where all relevant foreign names are included and explained. See WP:NCGN. Athenean (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And exactly the same thing can be said about those Bulgarian cities. Kostja (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to artcles of Bulgarian cities

After removing the Bulgarian names of most Greek towns that had them, it's extremely hypocritical of you to add Greek names to Bulgarian towns. The exact same arguments could be used in either case. In both cases the names are mostly of historical interest, so why should be in the lead? But if you think the Greek names are so important, then be so kind to add all the Bulgarian names of cities you took out first. You do know what Wikipedia:TEND is? Kostja (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there is a world of a difference. Kastoria and Florina have separate Name sections, and multiple relevant foreign names. Neither applies to Mesembria, Sozopolis, and Anchialos. The only relevant foreign name is the Greek one, not is there an interesting etymology, as the Bulgarian name is just corruption of the Greek name or something completely generic. You really need to read WP:NCGN, and not only read but understand it. The reason we include relevant foreign names in the lead is when there is a good likelihood that our readers will have encountered the foreign name. For example, over 1000 sources on Google books refer to "Primorie" as Anchialos. Suppose one of readers reads about the Battle of Anchialos, and wanted to look the place up. He types "Anchialos" and gets redirected to Primorie. How does he know that he is in the right place? He doesn't. And you are lying, in many of these cases the Greek name is NOT in the history section at all, or if it is, it is buried as much as possible and every effort is made to conceal it from our readers. Whereas the Bulgarian name of Kastoria and Florina is clearly displayed and explained in a separate name section at the very top of the article. So if anyone is being TENDentious, it is you. Athenean (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can see the merits of your arguments. However WP:NCGN has two relevant parts: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages". Therefore I will add the relevant Bulgarian names to Greek towns and villages which don't have a name section, especially if the Greek names are corruptions of Bulgarian names or recently invented. Kostja (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure that they are used by at least 10% of English language sources, and that neutral sources are used. Athenean (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is not necessary. The only thing needed is that they are "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place", which is true of all of them. Kostja (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as a) that population was substantial (not just a dozen families), and b) neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources are used to establish this. Athenean (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical or modern names?

Hey there, can you please indicate when the Greek names you add are not in common usage? NCGN is clear that a relevant foreign language name "is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". I have nothing against retaining Pyrgos, Mesimvria or Anchialos, they are historically relevant and used in sources (in some cases way more than 10%), so they have their place where you inserted them, but from what I gather they are not in common usage in modern Greek. It would be best if you indicate that by adding "formerly" before the Greek name, e.g.:

... Bulgarian: Бургас; formerly Greek: Πύργος, Pyrgos ...

Todor→Bozhinov 10:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pyrgos is indeed no longer in common usage in Greek, but I know Anchialos is, so I will do this on a case by case basis. Athenean (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Burgas is not commonly known or referred to as Pyrgos so I will remove it. You have reasons for Nessebar or Pomorie but not here. --Gligan (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Burgas was predominantly inhabited by Greeks in the 19th century, so inclusion of the Greek name in the lead is fully warranted. Read WP:NCGN. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide source for that? --Gligan (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From your very own Academy of Sciences, no less [58]. Athenean (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here it is written Greek community, no information whether it was significant or not. Anyways, I asked for source because you did the same. Specially for the case of Burgas I will make a name section because it is a large city. I am grateful for your grammar corrections in the article for the First Bulgarian Empire. I hope for a better cooperation between Bulgarian and Greek editors in the near future and avoiding double standards and hypocrisy is would be a good start (I am speaking generally, don't mean any particular case now). Not to act the way Factuarius does or the way your farmers are doing now ;-) I also expect to respond to my question on the talk page of the Second Empire for the meaning of successor state - whether it is only in timeline or not. --Gligan (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See also here:[59], R.J. Cramption, Bulgaria, page 433. Greeks were 34% in 1880, that's pretty significant. A separate "Name" section would be fine though (at the top of the article). Best, Athenean (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I insist in that particular case is not where the fact is mention but to mention that it was the Bulgarian army that fought the major battles because if saying that the major battlefield was in Thrace incompetent readers will surely not think of the Bulgarian army unless it is mentioned. That is as if to mention that the Navy an important role for the war, not particularly the Greek navy. --Gligan (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, but you can't change Hall's words like that. The statement that the major battles took place in Thrace already implies what you want. This is a fairly specialized article and the people that would read already know a bit of geography and history. I don't think you should underestimate our readers that much. Athenean (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely true. And Halls says The Bulgarians and the Ottomans would fight fight the major battles in the First Balkan War in Thrace. So after all he specifically mentions Bulgarians and Ottomans by name. --Gligan (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are starting again. Where is mentioned that the Bulgarians fought the bulk of the Ottoman army? Do you think that this is not true? In fact do you think that Bulgaria was not the ally who contributed most for the victory? Having in mind that you mention the Greek navy as a crucial factor for the victory I am astonished that you keep removing the fact that Bulgarian army was the key to victory. And that having in mind that it is directly cited from both Hall and Schurman - two of the three authors mentioned in the sources. Stop it already. --Gligan (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "starting again", you are [60]. Mentioning that Thrace was the main theater is more than sufficient, our readers aren't as stupid as you seem to think. You are clearly trying to push the POV that "Teh Bulgarians did all the fightintg!!!1" as many times as possible in the article. Well, it won't work. Once is enough, three times is ridiculous. This is tendentious. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So, why do you mention the Greek navy? Why not only navy? The readers have to even dumber not to understand that it is about the Greek navy if you mention "only navy" without saying to whom it belonged. The Greeks are credited by name and the Bulgarians are not. --Gligan (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because Bulgaria had a navy too, even though not much of one? To just say "the navy" is completely ridiculous. No way.Athenean (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Serbs also sent troops in Thrace so it seems that mentioning the Bulgarians after all makes sense by that logic. I urge you to return the quotes that I have put. And having in mind that in the previous sentence of the naval operations of the Greek fleet it is written that it had dominance over the Aegean, it is quite obvious that the Bulgarian fleet cannot be the one credited. --Gligan (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Serbian army isn't mentioned anywhere in that paragraph, so I don't see where the problem is. I'm just applying your logic, that's all. If you don't like it, you can always revert to the original version of January 22 and everything will be ok. Athenean (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, the Bulgarian fleet is not mention in that paragraph as well (I think it is not even mentioned at all in the article). I repeat, it is not fair to credit the Greeks by name and the Bulgarians not. --Gligan (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You have broken 3RR. Revert yourself or I will report you. Athenean (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not and you are not answering me. So when you do not have answer you just write nonsense. I would like you to answer my last message. --Gligan (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You *have* broken it, want to make a bet? That the Greek navy played a crucial role is not in doubt. To try and hide the word Greek is ridiculous and childish. To say that the Bulgarians did all the fighting however, is debatable, and trying to repeat it throughout the article is POV-pushing and tendentious. Athenean (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, tell me where I have claimed that the Bulgarians made all the fighting and even more specifically, where I have written in the article that the Bulgarians did all the fighting as you claim above? I say and claim and it is a fact that the Bulgarians fought the bulk of the Ottoman army and the major battle of the war.

"That the Greek navy played a crucial role is not in doubt" - all right; *Now* tell me is there doubt that The Bulgarian army played a crucial role? --Gligan (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Athenean or Spartan?

File:This.Is.Sparta_GN.to.film.jpg. It needs the right push to reach the bottom. I wonder if in ancient Athens a disruptive speech was punished the Spartan way too...Alexikoua (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kukush/Kilkis

Do you have sources that the town was almost completely destroyed by the Bulgarians in 10th century and that it flourished particularly during the Byzantine rule and not during the Bulgarian? This might be true, though I have never heard of it, so it would be nice to provide references on the places I had put citation needed. Thank you. --Gligan (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page

Next time you simply remove swaths of text [61] please consider either taking it to the talk page or at least leaving more of an explanation. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Update

Just wanted to let you know I read through your comments @ talk:rights and found them to be insightful. I think the correct interpritation of the Code of Hamm. could be found though. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look around and see what I can come up with. Athenean (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Balkan Wars

Exactly what gives you the right to remove secondary sources such as "Who are the Macedonians?" or the 1997 Balkan forum? About the population numbers, read WP:Primary before removing a primary source again. The decision about reliable sources doesn't give you a blank check to remove any primary source you don't like. Kostja (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See here: [62]. I repeat again: the RCN decision does not give you the right to remove every information about the destruction of Kilkis. Kostja (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[63] ??? I suggest you stop now. Athenean (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Greeks burned the Bulgarian center of Kilkis". I suggest you stop now. Kostja (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I note you have reached 3 reverts *very* quickly. The next step would be to report you. I have nothing more to say. Athenean (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are also on three reverts. The RCN decision did not permit you to remove everything you didn't like. Kostja (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't. In situations such as these, I limit myself to 2 (that's "two") reverts. Count 'em. This why I stopped and took it to RSN. Athenean (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus undo

Hi

Sorry but I undid your revision on the Cyprus page.

It is known (and ref'd) that the Egyptians had the island under their control for some time, and you deleteed that information

It is important to include the greeks as you did, but not at the expense of removing the Egyptians.

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. Sorry about that. Athenean (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian Empire

Next time discuss before making such edits. Bulgarians Khanate is not reasonable because the country was not a Khanate after 865. It is even more ridiculous to call the country Turkic having in mind that it can also be called Slavic. The First Bulgarian State came through a period of metamorphosis gradually uniting the Bulgars and the Slavs to form the Bulgarian people and cannot be called neither Turkic nor Khanate. Was Samuil a ruler of a Turkic Khanate? I think no. Not that it was an Empire in the beginning but the wide-spread and accepted term to describe the country since its foundation up to its fall is First Bulgarian Empire, using Bulgarian Khanate for that is incorrect and unacceptable. Turkic even less. --Gligan (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to read better. I'm not calling the empire "Turkic", but the Bulgars, who were Turkic. Second, it is the sources that you brought that call it the Danubian Bulgar Khanate. Yet you are misusing them the call the Empire Bulgarian, when in fact they call it the Danubian Bulgarian Khanate. All I did was correct your blatant misuse of sources. Maybe you should be more careful in choosing your sources next time :) Athenean (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the state is Bulgarian like it or not. That is why it is called First Bulgarian Empire, not Bulgar or Slav. So put back Bulgarian before medieval. And then Danube Bulgarian Khanate is absolutely applicable term, but not for the whole period of existence. It has to be mentioned but not in the lead section but in the section for the creation of the state and Asparukh. And concerning the Bulgars, mentioning that they are Tirkic (which I do not deny and in which there is nothing shameful) is unneeded because that is already said (with 10 sources behind, it is quite eye-catching) in the first section. And it belongs there because the state is not fully Bulgar but also Slavic so details about the founding peoples should be written below. --Gligan (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The two sources you brought call it "Danubian Bulgarian Khanate" not "Bulgarian state". If you didn't want "Danubian Bulgarian Khanate" then you shouldn't have used those two sources. You deliberately misused those sources to push your "Bulgarian-state" POV. Next time I suggest you be more careful. The lede should present a summary of the article. Of course we should tell our readers the Bulgars were a Turkic tribe. You are trying to hide this fact and push the "Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian" POV wherever possible. Well, you can't have that. No one is calling the state Turkic, but it should be mentioned in the lede that the Bulgars were Turkic. Athenean (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course our readers will understand that the Bulgars are Turkic people, you shouldn't underestimate them (come on, they know that Bulgaria had a Navy in the Balkan Wars; they would surely guess that the Bulgarians and the Turks fought the major battles even if we do not mention it and they now wouldn't know that the Bulgars are Turkic...). Those sources are used to describe something else and since Danube Khanate is not applicable for the state as a whole it will go down. --Gligan (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. You can't possibly expect our readers to guess that the Bulgars were Turkic. By the way, you said that mentioning that the Bulgars were Turkic (which I do not deny and in which there is nothing shameful). Then why are you trying so hard to hide this fact? It seems you do somehow find it shameful, that's why you are so opposed to mentioning this simple fact in the lead. Also, your assertion about it being a "Bulgarian" state is nonsense. When the First Bulgarian Empire was formed, there were no Bulgarians, only Bulgars and Slavs. You tried to misuse those two sources to push your POV and it blew up in your face. No source calls it a "Bulgarian state" only you. That's called WP:OR. Athenean (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My last edit is not a removal but reconstruction. I don't have all night to lose with you. Tomorrow we continue with the discussion. --Gligan (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit was a partial rv, which counts as an rv. Don't do that again. Athenean (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed my text

You removed my text where I maintained that on the pages of Wikipedia treating the Ancient History operates a gang of 3-5 persons (or a single one with couple accounts) who, by acting in concert on the related subjects, try to promote removal of the name of the Ancient Macedonia replacing it by Greece, Hellas or derivates of these names.

To remove my text was a good idea. Thanks very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed now, from the article on Ancient Macedonia, the following paragraph of mine: "IT WOULD BE RELEVANT to state the following instead: A reader should be aware that the pages which concern history of Ancient Macedonia are probably full blown dissimulation of fair discussions. It is very likely that on these pages a well organised collective acts in concord to promote specific political concepts which consist in systematic removal/replacement of the expression “Macedonia” or “Macedonian” or similar by the expressions “Greece”, “Greeks”. The motives behind these acts are not clear. Therefore when reading the texts on the Ancient Macedonia it should be kept in mind that “Greek” or “Greeks” may in fact often mean “Macedonian” or “Macedonians”Draganparis (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)." You seam to be an effective "athenean". Well done!Draganparis (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

I do not appreciate how I am being personally victimised by you, and the way in which you have used my talk page to threaten me. Nor do I appreciate the racist undertone with which you conduct yourself with the comment regarding "Τούρκος".

I am not attempting to removing all Hellenism from Cyprus. However, you appear to be pushing Hellenism on everything related to the topic, presumably due to your own Greek heritage, causing your edits to be the subject of bias and POV. For instance, whilst describing the Ptolemies in the Cyprus introduction is acceptable, claiming them to be the "Greek" empire is an overstatement; whilst they were of Greek descent, they had little to do with mainland Greece, and no historians refer to them solely as the "Greek" empire. As for a lack of support, other users (including Seric2 and Chaosdruid) have also had to rv your edits to the Cyprus article. In regards to the debate on the Church of Cyprus and the country's ethnic groups, it would, perhaps, have been better had you discussed your edits first, rather than lunging in and changing everything so it has "Greek" (and not even "Greek Cypriot") in the name. I must remind you that, despite your own views on the definition of the word "Greek", most dictionaries (cf. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary) define the term as relating to people from or native to Greece. Cyprus is a separate country, and your POV edits to make it appear as an extension of Greece is not only demeaning towards Cypriots and their individual identity, but is also very un-encyclopaedic. You have also followed my contributions around Wikipedia and attempted to undo more of my work outside the Cyprus article. Stalking me and rv everything I do because you do not like it is a very serious breach of rules regarding vandalism and is unacceptable.

If you do not stop reverting my contributions to Wikipedia, simply because they do not appeal to your personal views, and if you continue to threaten me, I will have no choice but to report you. —Olympian (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You make the distinction between ethnicity and nationality, but with the term “Greek”, do you have any evidence that this distinction is actual? According to all the dictionaries I have checked, including Oxford and Princeton Wordnet, a Greek is “a native or inhabitant of Greece”. So by that very definition, Greek-speaking people in Cyprus, whilst they may have links with Greece (enough to once want enosis, although only a minority still support the cause today) they are part of a different ethnic group. Why, by common sense, should the exact same ethnic group exist in Greece and its islands and then also exists thousands of miles away? And why should the Achaean Greeks who landed in Cyprus hundreds of years ago be the only source of Greek Cypriot heritage and genetics; what about the pre-existing aboriginals (the Eteocypriots, etc) and the assimilated subsequent settlers from the Near East, Anatolia and North Africa? Many geneticists who have studied Cypriot DNA have published material confirming that Cypriots are genetically not the same as Greeks and Turks. As for the cultural aspects of ethnicity, Cyprus has endured a completely separate history from that of Greece since ancient times. No ancient Greek poet or writer considered Cypriots to be Greeks, cf. Herodotus and Aeschylus, and it was never a Greek city-state. Since Classical times, Cypriot history has been distinct from Greek up until only very recently: in the Byzantine empire, Cyprus was a mere colony and was sub-ruled alongside the Levant, not alongside mainland Greece or its islands. In addition, there were centuries of non-contact between the two modern-day countries, which lead to separate evolutions of the Greek language, and separate customs being developed in Greece and Cyprus. Many sources list “Greek/Turkish Cypriot” as ethnic groups or communities, including Cyprus: A Country Study from the Library of Congress, as well as most censuses (such as this I found on Google [64] from the British government which classifies Greeks, GC, Turks, TC and Kurds as distinct ethnic groups). Even in the Cypriot census leading up to the Cyprus Convention, and in subsequent censuses, Cypriot people were/are asked to identify themselves as Greek Cypriot, Armenian, Maronite, Latin, or Turkish Cypriot; not Greek or Turkish. Why should we automatically judge these sources as incorrect, especially when they are social studies and international censuses. Some sources go so far as to use the term “Greek-speaking Cypriots” instead. For instance, in the Yearbook of the United Nations (such as Volume 1967), in the Journal of Neurological Sciences, and in this TIME article. To quote the seminal post-colonial literary text on Cyprus, Bitter Lemons:

"There are two main ethnic groups living in Cyprus: The Christian Orthodox community of Greek-speaking Cypriots and the Muslim Sunni community of Turkish-speaking Cypriots….But the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots have similar customs, and are indistinguishable in looks (e.g. colour, complexion, height, and attire)."

And if we’re going on public opinion (your example of enosis), then what about this Facebook group entitled “Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Maronite and Latin Speaking Cypriots Can Be Friends” which has over one thousand Cypriot members. Do they consider themselves purely Greek or Turkish? Other Cypriot-run organisations also use the term “Greek/Turkish-speaking”, including unifiedcyprus.com and thelastdividedcapital.com, amongst others. As for the concept of “Cypriot ethnicity”, the following anthropological or ethnological studies (some by Cypriots themselves) reference or describe Greek or Turkish Cypriot ethnicity: [65] and [66], as well as in the brilliant book Divided Cyprus, and in much of Floya Anthia’s well-known published material.

I have nothing against Hellenism. As you already know, I am Greek Cypriot, and very proud to be: I read classical Greek texts and am interested in Greek history and culture. However, I also appreciate the other aspects that build up my - and other Cypriot peoples' - identity. Whether that's the genetic and historic (such as Eteocypriot heritage), or aspects of Cypriot culture that is different from Greek, I realise that Greece and Cyprus, and Greeks and Cypriots, are not identical. They're similar and have mutual respect, but centuries and thousands of miles apart have made Greeks and Greek Cypriots members of distinct ethnic groups.

I hope you can respect this and, in an encyclopaedic manner, agree to using the term Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, as per most censuses and many ethnological and genetic studies. —Olympian (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A Facebook group? Are you serious? As far as I know, the only one who considers the Cypriots a separate ethnic group is yourself, and that is certainly not the consensus on wikipedia or anywhere else. In case you haven't noticed, Cypriots links to a list page, not an ethnic group article. That is the consensus here and in the broader world: "Cypriot" is nothing more than a geographic designation, it is not an ethnicity. As far as genetics, please leave that out of it. I know a lot about genetics, and it never ceases to amaze me how people who know nothing about genetics always try to read into DNA studies what they want. Genetics has nothing to do with culture and ethnic identity. The reason Greek and Turkish Cypriots are so similar is because Turkish Cypriots are basically Greek Cypriots who converted to Islam during Ottoman rule, much like Muslim Cretans. By your logic, then, Cretans are also "not" Greeks. In fact, if we take your chain of reasoning (that seeks to magnify even the most trivial cultural differences) to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as "Greeks". Local differences exist throughout the Greek world, but that doesn't mean everyone is a separate ethnic group. So Cypriot cuisine is a bit more Middle Eastern influence than that of mainland Greece? So what? That is an example of a trivial difference that you seek to magnify for effect. The differences between Greeks on Cyprus and those on the mainland are minor and can all be ascribed to geography. Regarding the Churches, you seem to have confused Greek Orthodox Church, with Church of Greece. There is a world of a difference there. The Church of Cyprus is part of the broader Greek Orthodox Church, together with the Church of Greece. But enough on this, there is clearly no point in trying to talk you out of your views, so we are going to have to agree to disagree. Now, I can probably live with "Greek Cypriot" and "Turkish Cypriot", but Cypriot-Americans as "Asian-Americans"? Give me a break! Also, I find it a bit extreme (and Chaosdruid has agreed with me) that Greeks aren't mentioned anywhere in the lead of Cyprus. That Cyprus was heavily settled by Greeks since Mycenean times and has been part of the Greek World since then (why did the Cypriots join the Ionian revolt?) has to be mentioned in the lead. I hope you can agree to that much at least. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Albanian Language article

I made an edit to revert your recent omit of references in the Albanian language page. Please do not delete references in this page any longer. There are three centuries of linguists, starting from Gottfried Leibniz that show that Illyrian equals Old Albanian. Omitting references like you did makes Wikipedia a poorer Encyclopedia. Thank you! user:sulmues talk --Sulmues 14:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need 73 references to prove a single point. Go ahead, ask anyone. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done here. sulmues talk--Sulmues 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you keep reverting, I reported you here user:sulmues talk--Sulmues 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm here to offer a third opinion. Seventy three references is seventy two too many. In addition, I'm not sure any of them directly support your staement that Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanian as the descendant of Illyrian. You need just one reference which somehow states this is the traditional, or orthodox, view. Finally, you may want to give readers some background on the issue of albanian language origins, specifically on the politicisation of the issue.--Work permit (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am glad to see that common sense still prevails in wikipedia. The statement in question can be easily sourced. Athenean (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done! Athenean (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to disagree with Work permit's opinion, although I do agree with you on the politicization of the issue. Right now the article reads as follows:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanian as the descendant of Illyrian, though of late this hypothesis has been seriously challenged by linguists, who maintain that it derives from Dacian or Thracian.

This sentence, while seemingly neutral, just gives the reader the idea that Albanian descends from Dacian or Thracian (not from Illyrian), because one ore two scholars have argued so recently, throwing away all the 3 century work that considered Albanian to stem from Illyrian. We just have to be patient to see if more scholars will brign down the arguments of the Dacian/Thracian origin, because the dead linguists can't do so any longer. Leaving one reference per argument simply leaves the doubt that the most recent scholar work should be the winning one, while that might not be the case at all. If someone wants to learn from Wikipedia, it is better to not leave the words of the editors talk, but mostly those of the references and scholars. That is why we write in the English Wikipedia, to bring together the worlds' knowledge. If I were to open an Albanian Encyclopedia, chances are it will be different from the English Encyclopedia and also from the Greek one. In the English wikipedia we need to take into account as much information possible, because every editor can make a change at any time, but important work in analyzing descendance from 50 scholars in 300 years still needs to be seen although some editors wanted to get rid of them at a certain point. Deleting the references makes wikipedia a less serious encyclopedia. user:sulmues talk--Sulmues 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is perfectly neutral. The only one doesn't think so is you. The stuff from 3 centuries ago is outdated. It's like saying we should take Aristotelian physics into account when discussing relativity. You asked for a third opinion, and now you got it. Athenean (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with the part of the referencing. I agree with the politicization though. Btw Aristotelian physics might not be fine, but when it comes to math and linguistics, things are different because we can still use Pithagora's theorems whereas Leibnitz's differential equations are still around, as so is his theory that Albanian stems from Illyrian. Linguistics is intrinsically connected to history and that's why we would value more an opinion of an old historian as opposed to a younger one: he was closer to the language at that time: Leibnitz considered the Albanian spoken in the XVIIth century and so did Thunman some years later.

@Worker's permit: you might be interested in seeing arguments brought in the Edit Warring Noticeboard as I reported the case user:sulmues talk--Sulmues 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Illyrian hypothesis is discussed at great length in the article. What you seem to say is that you want the Illyrian hypothesis to be favored. What I have written is taken verbatim from an academic, neutral source of the highest quality. You need to read WP:UNDUE. I am not interesting in discussing this further with you. Athenean (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentance is reasonably neutral. user:sulmues, if you wish to make the point that the Illyrian origin is supported by 50 scholars over 300 years then find a single reference that says that. --Work permit (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly do that if I didn't think that bringing the references themselves in the article wouldn't be a more viable solution in being less prone to reverts. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 12:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence shows your approach of using 73 references is more prone to reverts, and hence less viable :)--Work permit (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

Hi

Dont worry - there is no rush from my point of view on the Cyprus thing - tomorrow or later is fine, I know you are busy on that other thing you have going on, after you have had a nice nights sleep and forgotten all the silly little things that people do to upset the apple cart (and sometimes the very road the cart is on lol)

Anyway take care and we can get on with an agreed wording tomorrow maybe :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. There's no WP:DEADLINE :) Athenean (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice apokries and triimero! Since I will be off these days...

Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Join WikiProject NPOV

Hello! I invite you to join WikiProject NPOV, a WikiProject whose aim is to increase the neutral point of view of articles related to controversial issues and topics. It is chiefly designed to help users collaborate on articles, but also to resolve disputes, and to coordinate work on vandalism clean-up. All the best, --Cinéma C 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will. Athenean (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Greece talk page

I've re-written to you on the Greece discussion page.--Theologiae (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Greece discussion

I've replied to you on talk:Greece :)--Theologiae (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparta Lead

I think that we should rewrite the lead of this article. It is small, dry and seems, always to my opinion, lacking in its purpose to give a short and general idea as to the purpose of the article. You expressed a willingness to expand and improve it and I also offer my help. GK1973 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Let's do it. Athenean (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Monshuai

Thanks for your report on Monshuai. Just a small thing, did you mis-spell the name of that sock account of his? It doesn't link to any registered account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me check. Would AN be a better place for this, btw? Athenean (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much of a difference. ANI is faster and gets more traffic than AN. For things that can be decided quickly, ANI is usually fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the link to the sock. Athenean (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues is going around canvassing the talkpages of every Bulgarian user he knows and any and all Macedonian and Albanian users that he thinks have an axe to grind against me or Greeks in general [[67]]. Athenean (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the freedom of making this [68] change to your AE report on Monshuai. Formally, you can't ask for an indef block under the ARBMAC rules; it allows for blocks only up to a year, and indef sanctions only if they are restricted to topic bans or similar things. Hope that's okay with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Actually, if it's going to be a topic ban, it should cover anything within the scope of ARBMAC. If he's banned only from Bulgaria-related topics, he's going to take his "double-standards" sledgehammer to other Balkan-related topics (e.g. Byzantine empire). Athenean (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Spi

I've mentioned you in this spi case I've just filled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti. It concerns a possible sock account of User:Sarandioti.Alexikoua (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Luan Shabani

I think you ought to discuss a change that you made for Luan Shabani in Korce. Please talk in talk page. I made a revert here ([69]). sulmues --Sulmues 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw that you made a revert, it is quite obvious. Nice of you to revert but telling me to discuss. Anyway, first of all, he is most commonly known as Leonidas Sabanis, not Luan Shabani. Second, in the notable people section, we only need include what he is most famous for, not give a list of every single achievement. That is what the Leonidas Sabanis article is for. Athenean (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pashalik of Yanina

Please do not continue reverting back and forth; rather, discuss this civilly on the talk page of that article. Thank you.  f o x  (formerly garden) 11:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also notice you're on the verge of violating 3RR, so please discuss rather than hitting revert. Thanks again.  f o x  (formerly garden) 12:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Science

I understand the confusion; I got confused too. Thanks. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Athenean, you're of course free to accuse me of anything you like. However, persistently following another user around is not really constructive and may be construed as harassment. I'm not saying that you're doing this, but it seemed to me that you searched rather thoroughly for cases where I can be implicated in edit warring. It's also rather unfair to accuse me of avoiding discussions when I have participated in extensive discussion on multiple topics with you. Kostja (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you around. I saw that you were edit-warring at FBE, and then looked at your contribs, where I saw you were also edit-warring at IMRO. Contribs logs are public for a reaon. If you do not want to be accused of edit-warring, then don't edit-war. But please don't play innocent victim here. You have edit-warred, and you are edit-warring. Take responsibility for your actions. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Please may I make a suggestion ? There are many was to resolve your differences here Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please stay cool and check out other means. Thank you vey much Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mosque Islam etc

Hi again - hope you are ok?

just thought I would ask if you have any knowledge of Sunni Islamic considerations as the text states "Sunni" and not "Islam" and I thought perhaps there may be a list somewhere of Sunni sites but I can only find a Wiki one

Most of the sources I have found are more Islam "general" and not specific to Sunni

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. According to this source [70], Al Aqsa mosque is the third holiest site in Islam, and I'm pretty sure of this. It is a Sunni Mosque, so it is also the third holiest site in Islam. I have never heard of this Hala Sultan Tekke being the third holiest, and since it was added by "Olympic God" that makes me VERY suspicious. Athenean (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at Vjosë, [71], [72], [73]. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 10:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I believe the block was issued in error. None of my edits are reverts, and none of them were subsequently reverted by other others. The last diff cited above in particular, I really don't see how it can be construed as contentious. I don't see how this constitutes edit-warring. In any case, if I am unblocked, I will refrain from making any edits that could be construed as the slightest bit contentious and propose them first on the article's talkpage. Thank you.}} Athenean (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Athenean (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot edit, the autoblock is still in effect. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Try again, I believe I cleared the autoblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Athenean (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Post Script

• A post script to both editors, just for my own satifaction here's a link showing my involvment in the matter Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need help with edit warring. If I'm showing you something you already know or don't care to know, I apologize, like I said this is for my saifaction. I don't like feeling like I was going behind anybody's back. Thank you both. Happy editing. Mlpearc MESSAGE 19:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • No worries, carry on. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for semi protection on Vasil Bollano, Ghin Boua Spata, but it seems that they always 'find' something new to promote their agenda. I also see that User:Keep it Fake is the one that 'strikes' first on every occasion and then followed by the rest.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox map on Greece article

Hello Athenian. Could you please restore the map of Greece in the infobox so it shows all the Aegean Islands. Someone altered it and the islands are not shown clearly. Can you please restore it? Thanks! 77.83.196.213 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Athenean (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Visa Waiver Program

Hello Athenian once again! Many thanks for taking care of the above. As you might know Greece has entered the Visa Waiver Program. See this: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-Level_Online_Help_1.htm#Which. Can you please update the map in the relevant Wikipedia article so it includes Greece? I have no idea how to do it! Thanks in advance!77.83.196.213 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's wonderful news, but modifying a map like that is beyond my expertise and the time at my disposal. Don't worry, I'm sure someone else will do it eventually. Best, Athenean (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your report

[74]I expect an apology.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted you

I reverted you here ([75])--sulmues (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues

Hi. I've noticed you reverting quite a few of ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs)'s edits and reported him to SPI. Perhaps it might be a good idea for more neutral editors to review his contributions? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but one reason I did it is because that has yet to happen. Today I only reverted some of them, not all of them. In any case, I am glad to see you are on it. Regarding the SPI, though the checkuser was negative, I'm not yet fully convinced there is no foul play there. This guy is either a real fast learner, or else a returning user. Athenean (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not massive revert

I would like to kindly ask you to not revert carefully written paragraphs with a discriminatory "POV pushing". If I make 11 edits, each one of them has a reason. They were good edits and your massive reverts do not help the Wikipedia project. You could use my talk page if you want to discuss them, but taking out someone elses's work like you recently did ([76]) is definitely not helping. Thank you for your understanding. --sulmues (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Then don't make such massive edits without getting a consensus on the talkpage first. You went ahead and edited the article as if you owned it. The fact that I reverted you means that I do not agree with your edits, which I am entitled to. Next time, before making controversial edits, discuss them on the talkpage first. Athenean (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No one owns an article. If you don't agree with an edit, please revert it and explain the revert in the talk page. But those were many edits: Some were about the "statehood" of Northern Epirus and that has a separate discussion, but most of my edits regarded the state of war. The state of war was a law that Greece had and in 1987 Greece lifted it. As a matter of fact some political analysts argue that legally Greece is still at a state of war, but that is extremely controversial to bring here. I made for instance an edit which took out the use of passive "The state of war was lifted" because it was ambiguous: I changed it into "Greece lifted the state of war". In fact, Albania had no laws to be in war with Greece, but Greece did. When it removed it in 1987, after 47 years, there was no state of war with Albania any longer. Massive reverts are out of place and we both lose more time in reverting one another and defending from reports than getting something done. If we work together to build a climate of understanding and trust, then we can clearly represent many Albanian-Greek issues very decently. --sulmues (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Spare me the preaching. What was "massive" was your editing spree, for which you didn't obtain consensus. Next time, before making massive edits like that, it is your job to discuss them on the talkpage first, not mine. Athenean (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's weird

[77]. A user returns only to support your report. Do you think that's normal?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, great choice of map. I just realized the 1861 map shows most of Kosovo, especially Pristina, as completely inhabited by Serbs. Athenean (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just adding all viewpoints and the same map shows all of Epirus inhabited by Albanians. Later I added another map to show all viewpoints, so now I think that all major views of the time are present in those articles. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chania

Why did you revert me? That's Vasil Shkurtaj's birthplace. --sulmues (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't born there, his family moved there after he was born. He is after all, Albanian, not Cretan. Athenean (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know that he wasn't born there. Thanks! --sulmues (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

CCN consensus

The consensus that was reached, beside removing captions, was to move the question of their objectivity in the article text. So I'll hope you add some information about the pro-Greek character of Synvet and Stanford. Kostja (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but in the interest of general peace, please try to stick as closely as possible to what the sources state. Athenean (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@Kostja: Synvet was not pro-Greek I told you many times in many talk pages, if something was pro-Turkish for all the reasons I told you (although you were right about the dates, my mistake). But I don't see reasons in trying to find sources about the pro-Greekness of Stanford, it would be idiotic, nobody ever challenged the obvious. Do you? --Factuarius (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dalmatae

I reverted you in the article, because the etymology obviously is important enough to be in the beginning and that sentence had nothing to do with the source which if you read you'll realize it yourself. Before reverting it is better to check what you're reverting to.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not etymology. The modern Albanian word is recent. Therefore, it is impossible that the modern Albanian word is the etymology of "Dalmatians". There is a world of a difference between saying a word is "connected" to another word, and etymology. Even so, etymologies are not usually included in the leads of articles. That the name "Dalmatians" is phonetically similar is of course interesting, but it is not sufficiently important to go into the WP:LEAD. The lead should contain a summary of the article contents, not details such as this. Athenean (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the partial revert.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we managed to work this out. Athenean (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I made the appropriate change. The word is delme in Illyrian and dele in Albanian. --sulmues (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The change you made is not appropriate. You re-inserted a minor linguistic detail in the lead, where it doesn't belong, a point on which I had agreed on with ZjarriRrethues. Here we had reached an understanding, and along you come messing everything up. Athenean (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I can move it in a specific paragraph, called "Name" but as it was, it was incorrect. Is that fine with you? --sulmues (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine, yes. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy

[78]I think you overreacted here, take it easier.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please make a quick c-e check here?Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning for harassment.

Your last accusation after the many ones that you have filed against me goes under Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Consequences_of_personal_attacks. I am warning you that as soon as I am cleared from this accusation if you don't behave and continue to harass me with personal attacks, I will report you for a community ban. --sulmues (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Filing an AE request against your disruptive behavior is NOT a personal attack, contrary to what you seem to think. A good example of a personal attack would be something like this [79]. Athenean (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. Under Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F you can read that

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

If you continuously accuse with your diffs not supporting what you say, then this falls under harassment. In the last accusation you accused me of being incivil, and it turned out that all your diffs did not support that. Now you are reporting under wp:battleground and when all your diffs will be proved wrong, this will fall under harassment. You have been warned. You are harassing me. --sulmues (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have documented the disruption you have caused using plenty of diffs. If anything, the one who is making wild accusations without evidence is you: "The Albanian archaeologists' NPOV is continuously deleted in Wikipedia by the Greek editors." Athenean (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Those diffs are not supporting what you claim. And I have faith in the admins. --sulmues (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

They show exactly what I claim: That you constantly seek new ways of creating tensions with Greek editors. You know that claiming Pyrros Dimas and Pyrrhus of Epirus as Albanian will only irritate the Greek editors while doing nothing to improve wikipedia. And I too have faith in the admins: They have given you what you richly deserve many times in the past. Now stay off my talkpage. Athenean (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I remind you that what are you doing here around is a shame even for a Greek. I suggest you not to spend time spreading disinformation around, a behavior suitable for a barbarian ,myself I am originally from “Labova e Zhapes” for instance and what you write there is absolutely not true …History is not just a distort version of story,it can not work for long --Alesiender (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Hello, you are invited to take part in the following discussion on this topic. The discussion is about general ways to improve Wikipedia in terms of verfiiability of contents. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It takes to to make a tango

It depends on ones' viewpoint. What you see as a provocation for the other is the truth and vice-versa (your truth is a provocation for him). I was referring to your continuous accusations towards user sulmues. Just look how many times you reported him on every ground (not only him though:). More tolerance from you was my idea. Right now in eyes of every Albanian contributor your position looks like one who is interested only on harassing and not contributing to Albanian related articles. Sincerely Aigest (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, the stuff about Pyrrhus of Epirus, Molossians, et al., is pure provocation, it's nonsense and everyone knows it. I'm not interested in Battle of Vlora, and King Zog, i'm just interested in keeping the WP:FRINGE nonsense out of articles that have to do with classical antiquity. If that means reporting users who are disruptive, so be it. If he doesn't want to be reported, then all he has to do is cease being disruptive. Athenean (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand but please note that for eg Cabanes and Funke as referred here [80] have demonstrated by archaeological evidence that regarding Epirus, linguistically Greek was spoken in the South, Illyrian in the North and also there must have been an area of bilingualism. So apart Albanian archaeologist which maintain the extreme version, there are other respectable contemporary archaeologists and historians who have the above position. There are no black and white stories (especially old ones), most of them are gray. Aigest (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you will note that he doesn't name Molossians, Chaonians explicitly, so it all depends on what you call "North" and "South". It is not clear to me how Cabanes defines Epirus, various authors use various definitions. If he uses the Shkumbin as the northern boundary, for example, then there is no disagreement with the other sources. But I have yet to see any recent scholarship (i.e. from 1970 onwards) explicitly make the claim that the Molossians and other Epirotes were anything other than Greek-speaking. But that is not the point. Just compare your source-based argument with the inanities on Talk:Molossians and Talk:Pyrrhus of Epirus. Unlike with you, it is not possible to reason with that fellow. If you prove one of his ORguments wrong (e.g. the Molossians and Thesprotians inhabited territory that lays entirely within the borders of Greece), he will come up with another, even more inane one (e.g. "The Cham Albanians used to live there"). It never ends. Athenean (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO all these debates came from editors policies in respective countries. Since profit is the main issue than editors are more interested in publishing books that they know that they are going to be sold within the market. In Albania for eg you can find mainly the works of those authors (Albanians and foreigners) who support the thesis of Illyrian-Albanian and lately even hypothesis like that of Pelasgian case. The publishing house knows that these books will be sold for sure, while others will not be sold in great numbers, only specialist of the field might be interested on them. An excellent example recently would be the work of a German scholar (Schmidt) regarding Skanderbeg, in which the main idea of the book was that Skanderbegs' war reason was his thirst of revenge against the Turkish Sultan. Apart his factual accuracy and other arguments which the books lacked, the book was not accepted so well by public (based on reviews) and was not sold in big numbers, only professional historians bought it. While the books attacking this book which were published later, were sold very quickly. AFAIK the same happened with Black Athena book in Greece or the work of Cabanes over Epirus (although not in the same scale but still Cabanes and others who support the let's say "proAlbanian view" are not well known in Greece). So there is a publishing filter in every country (mainly profit) which does not allow us to have different POV on certain matters (especially those related to nationalistic topics) apart technological ones which do not constitute a problem. That problem is not extended only in Balkan countries but even further. If you'll have a look all over wiki articles you can find the same debates in nationalistic issues, while technical articles don't suffer from this problem. Returning to the actual case I didn't want to open a debate but just letting you know that as I said before what you see as a provocation for the other is the truth and vice-versa. Editors policy fault not us:). We have read what we could and have created our opinions. We can change them, but not by force. Only by reasoning. That's why more patience and moderate tones or attitudes are needed. I have never reported any contributor to wiki (and my intention is to never report) that's my personal choice keeping the above issue in mind. That is what I recommend to others. Hope I was clear. Regards Aigest (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem like a reasonable guy. I only wish that were also true of your fellow editors on this encyclopedia. Athenean (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pavlos Vrellis Greek History Museum

By the way thanks for your incredible c-e job in a variety of articles. Can you please give me a hand with this one?Alexikoua (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Athenean (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I left a reply here [81], when you get the chance please reply back.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You really need to STOP following me around like that. I won't warn you again. Athenean (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you around, that map mentions Albanians too so naturally as a person who is interested in Albania-related I'm interested when another user proposes a change regarding Albania-related articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop pretending. You only found out about it because you look at my contribs all the time. Stop doing that. Athenean (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, special:contributions is public, meaning anyone can see them if he wants to. Secondly, you were reverted by another user [82], while acting without consensus. Thirdly, I'm not interested in your contributions, I'm interested in Albania-related articles, and that is one of them. Fourthly, please read wp:npa and calm down this is not a battleground. Take it easy.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, this whole Albanian/Greek/Turk/Armenian/Macedonian/Serb/Kosovar thing would be funny if it wasn't tragic. Incidentally, please be less hostile in your edit summaries. And feel free to stalk my contributions! DS (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what your point is or why you came and posted here. Did Zjarri ask you for help on IRC again?
2. If people were more careful with their edits, I would be more careful with my edit summaries.
3. I don't recall expressing an interest in your contributions, I just don't like it when hostile editors follow me around.

Regards, Athenean (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethno-linguistic Map

Well, I already fixed one mistake on the old map, which the map you replaced it with had the same mistake. What other mistakes are there? AnOicheGhealai (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in general, it greatly exaggerates minority languages. For example:

1. It greatly exaggerates Catalan and German in France.
2. It greatly exaggerates French and German in Northwestern Italy
3. It greatly exaggerates Russian in Ukraine
4. It greatly exaggerates minority languages spoken by very few people in Greece (e.g. Albanian, Aromanian, etc...)
5. It exaggerates the area where Basque is spoken

There are many other instances, these are just a few that come of the top of my head. Athenean (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

I've noticed that you have made complaints to a particular editor about their use of sources. I was wondering if you would mind having a look at the material gathered on User:Syncategoremata/Misuse of sources (and other editors' pages linked there). I am very concerned about the work of that particular editor but am also very unclear what might be the best way to deal with it. Any advice would be gratefully received.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Burrel, Albania

Sentence, that I wrote is deleted again. Can we stop him somehow to do this things?

One more question, I am writing on serbian wikipedia history of WWI and there are some parts of WWI that are missing or they are not given on right way. One of them is Balkan front and its meaning on end of war. Can you tell me is this topic written on greek wikipedia? I can not read Greek. :( --Alexmilt (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am Kosovo topic banned, but my edits involve Burrel, which is in Albania, under Albania TF, not under Kosovo TF. Anyways, I'll stop from editing there to be in full compliance with the edit ban, since many interpretations might arise. --Sulmues _talk 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand the problem now. You seem to have misunderstood the scope of your topic ban. Though Burrel is located in Albania, the organ theft occured in Kosovo. As such, the organ theft itself is a Kosovo-related topic, which you are not allowed to edit. So while edits to Burrel such as this are perfectly fine [83], anything related to the organ theft is strictly off-limits. By the way, if you want the topic ban lifted it would really help your case if you didn't breach it as you did, and if you didn't edit-war on top of that. Athenean (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you oppose the lift of my ban if I asked for it in WP:AE? --Sulmues _talk 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Athenean? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

After this bout of edit-warring [84] [85] [86] combined with such hostility on the talkpage [87], absolutely. Consider yourself very lucky I didn't report you to AE for that (I always believe in warning people first). Breaking a topic ban the way you did and then edit-warring on top of it is grounds for a loooooooong block, easily. You have about a month to go on your topic ban, so my advice to you would be to just respect it and be patient. And please, please, try to be a little more neutral. While some of your edits at Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania were OK, some others were the very paradigm of tendentious battleground editing. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw your partial reverts on Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania. I'm trying to follow a 1RR or a 0RR if possible. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You certainly didn't follow a 1RR or 0RR in Burrel and Greco-Italian War. And by the way, my edits at OACA were not reverts. You still don't understand what a revert is. Athenean (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied in the talk page see this, but for some VERY STRANGE reason, it's not appearing on that page. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious he is ethnic Greek, and the article is about ethnic Greeks in Albania, so I really fail to see what the issue is here. You can't use a WP:MOSBIO stylistic technicality to claim that he is not ethnic Greek. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that you'd be right if we could rename the article Greek Albanians, rather than Greeks in Albania. Panajot Pano was never a Greek, he was an Albanian with Greek origins and that's it. You'd find it very annoying to have Albanian editors claim that Albanians who fought for the Greek independence be called Albanians. I would too if I were a Greek: it wouldn't be right. We should do something similar to what is done with Albanian Americans or Greek Americans (see here). How does a change of the article name sound? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A name change for the article is a non-starter. "Ethnic group X in country Y" is standard naming procedure, whereas Greek Albanians makes no sense to me. Anyway, I think part of the problem is that you confuse ethnicity with nationality: He had Albanian nationality, but was ethnically Greek. It's the same situation as with Andreas Zarbalas, it's just that in that article, per MOSBIO, ethnicity is mentioned more prominently because because that is one of the reasons for notability. But that's that's the only difference, and it's a in-wiki difference so to speak. Pano is no less Greek than Zarbalas just because of some wikipedia stylistic convention. If we follow your line of reasoning, then we'd have to conclude that there are no Greeks at all. Athenean (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ali

Hi, how's Athens today? I was wondering if you can check this, although I feel that there is not much to be done. You know how to c-e in Laconic/Spartan style and that's something I have not. Cheers!Alexikoua (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Jagged 85

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Greek genocide

Please refrain from reverting for the moment as I have taken it to 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:85.107.38.237_reported_by_User:Anothroskon_.28Result:_.29

--Anothroskon (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was about to post there myself. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe that this is a more correct name to describe the specific conflict. Thanks for the hand.Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)