Despite sincere efforts I failed to find any serious source discussing "Thyamis" as a potential etymological root for the name of modern day Chams. Sorry...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: The fact that I didn't trace anything (appart from the usual non specialist drivel) does not mean that such a relation has not been proposed. I do not know which (obscure?) source (Χατζιγάκις maby?) Babiniotis had in mind... Andriotis says nothing about it and the αποδελτιωμένα (άντε να το μεταφράσω τώρα αυτό) λήμματα του συχωρεμένου dictionary of the Academy (ζωή σε λόγου μας) did not enlighten me at all. I didn't have the chance to have a look at the Λεξικόν της Μεσαιωνικής και της Δημώδους by Kriaras. If you happen to have access it might worth the effort. Cheers.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. As for Yannis... what can I say. It's a disgrace. Δηλαδή πώς την είδαμε τώρα. Να γαμιέται η παπαδιά να πληρώνει το χωριό?[reply]
No need to thank me. Your remarks are as always much more sharper than mine, but in the case of these two scholars I think that it would be rather misleading to cite them as representative examples of the extant scholarship (they were not even representative for their own time). The article is still full of problems but as I have stated in one of our earlier communications I prefer to restrict my self to nothing less than the most obvious of inaccuracies. If you ask me, all these articles are hopeless cases--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Loipon, I mean that if we state Macedonians are a also a modern Greek group, we are placing a date of creation of such a group. By using the term 'modern' we mean that the Macedonians (Greeks) were created in the 20th century. However, there are Greek authors who declared themselves Macedonians in the 17th century and that is not a 'modern' date, but several centuries old, and certainly before a Slavic speaking group started identifying with the term Macedonian in the late 19th and especially in the 20th century. The Slavic speakers are a modern Macedonian group. The Greek speaking Macedonians are older than that. Politis (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of the saner Greekipediaans here. We need you., If you keep in touch with George tell him I am back and would like to catch up.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BC, it is. I thought by 4th century BC, greece already had colonies along Black sea coast . See ancient greek colonies article Hxseek (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did slightly amend that map, I think you were right Hxseek (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you drop by Deuci's talk page so we discuss this and reach a consensus. I really want to avoid an edit war since it would show bad on the article's history log. I made some proposals allready I'd like your opinion. Thanks--Xenovatis (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if we change back to the previous colonisation img? It seemed clearer when read although this one does provide more info once you click on it.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked the new notes section though, makes it look alot more professional to have them separate and I think Yannis had mentioned it as well.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept your map but just shrank it to be the same size as the other. Also rewrote the unclear part of the classical section. Check it out and make any changes necessary. --Xenovatis (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I just can't be bothered anymore. There is also another point on autochthony inserted later in the classical section that we will need to address at some point and of course this rather explains the peculiarity of the mycenaean section and the religious survival theme. The article needs major work on important issues and I really don't want to waste time on this. The funny thing is that I know we will have enough of a problem convincing western reviewers the ancient greeks have a place in that article let alone anyproto-greeks. My only concern is that reviewers may find this point too objectionable and thus it could hurt the article. I suggested its placement in the notes but Deuci was adamant. As it is it doesn't sound too harsh but I will run it by Future when I ask him to peer review the article.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. That would help enormously. I am thinking of user:relata_refero who had dropped by in march but I would appreciate some more ideas on who else to call.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refero is out of commision since november apparently, pity. Apart from pmanderson can you think of any other non-greeks? Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out now, I added a ref from a Kolliopoulos book on brigands. Best I could find that mentioned all three.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the name section be either dropped completely or changed into a paragraph with a short description of the evolution Hellenes-Romioi-Hellenes etc and the use abroad Greeks-Ionians etc, since WP:MOS suggest to avoid lists where a paragraph can be used. Personally though I thought this was the least controversial/tendentious section. In any event I will probably araioso for now and may come back later. Take care.--Xenovatis (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
alcove- i invite you to join the discussion about an addition I made to Euclid.
Check out my page first, which gives a summary, and then the talk page.
NittyG (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the exact same people seem to constantly try to consciously undermine our ethnicity on virtually every article they contribute to what is one supposed to think? Nearly every day unabated for years (literally thousands of edits)? So when is the right time to openly talk about how I (and my relatives) are constantly being openly harassed for our heritage and a civil war we didn't create (but apparently are now solely responsible for cleaning up). Are we supposed to wait until Turkey and FYRoM agree to divide Greece into Ottoman pieces?
I have relatives in Macedonia. They call themselves Macedonians. I am sick of listening to narratives by people claiming that they "aren't taking sides"... and yet seem to have completely forgotten about the human rights of my relatives to self-identity with their own heritage.
You know how I know its bigotry? It's not about what people say (everyone is fair game for analysis and criticism) but about the lopsided frequency, wide-sweeping nature of the comments, and willful blindness to the glaringly obvious facts. Wasn't it a slight clue when FYROM's own first President admitted they aren't related? How about when virtually every accredited academic on the planet says Alexander was Greek? Isn't their language being a Serb-Bulgarian dialect and ours Greek a clue of our respective heritage? How about that they constantly contradict their own historical narratives? Historical artifacts? US congress bill cosponsored by Obama? What happened to international legal obligations to protect state emblems? Obviously if someone dresses up in a toga and calls themselves "Athenians" they are entitled to Athens right?
Rather than focus on the disagreement at hand it has instead turned into a never ending stream of mudslinging that attempts to debase all aspects of our humanity. It's bigotry pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.241.189 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with plenty of what you say but a fuller response will have to wait. Nonetheless, I agree with the last paragraph, for everyone involved. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek speaking world has had its self-identification doubted for at least fifteen hundred years.The medieval Westerners claimed the Roman Empire as their own exclusive heritage. This necessitated that they first discredit the Romans by calling them Greeks when they self-identified as Romans. Guess what language they spoke. Then after the Romans made the mistake of sharing the Greek Classics the Westerners decided they would also like to claim the Greeks as their own exclusive heritage. This necessitated that they first discredit the Greeks by calling them Modern Greeks when they self-identified as Greeks. Again no prizes for guessing what language these spoke. As you can sse the Slavs come late to the party and compared to Westerners are rank amateurs in the art. In short, I wouldn't worry.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, as Xenovatis demonstrated above, no one escapes having their "myths" questioned in this time and age. (especially the West ;) Nice video, by the way. Good(?) God. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to rebut against arguments that aren't stated 3rdAlcove. You don't think Greeks are targets of bigotry? Or is it you don't think certain Wikipedia contributers show a one-sided pattern of trying to undermine Greek ethnicity?
Xenovatis, I noticed Italy recognized FYRoM but I somehow suspect they would object if Greeks changed their name to the Republic of Rome... started claiming the Greek language is actually Latin... suggested Caesar was from Athens....and then complained how their "ethnic Roman" relatives in Rome are being persecuted. Unlike FYRoM nationals Greeks don't have the luxury of an alter ego as Bulgarian, Yugoslavian and Slav to run to.
This means Greeks are being backed into a corner. Unless FYRoM's identity crisis is solved soon blood will be spilled when they enevitably attempt to stir things up in places like Florina and Thessaloniki to "unite Macedonia" and "protect ethnic Macedonians". Many groups know this and would love to exploit the issue to make Europe and Obama look bad. It's a lose lose situation for everyone that will only destabilize the entire region. Aka... I'm worried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.227.111 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Είπα να ρίξω μια ματιά να δω πώς τα περνάτε και σου έστειλα κι ένα άρθρο που ζήτησες (The Invisibility Of Turks Of African Origin And The Construction Of Turkish Cultural Identity) Δεν λέει πολλά αλλά ελπίζω να σου φανεί χρήσιμο. Καλή συνέχεια--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my comment on the Martin Bernal talk page for reasons I do not completely understand. I agree with what you did in removing the Black Athena material so that it only appears in its own article. I still find the current Martin Bernal article very unsatisfactory, and in some respects offensive, and I intend to improve it. If you have any helpful advice, I'd be happy to listen. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my mistake! For some reason I was editing an out-of-date version. --macrakis (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is almost always a very bad idea (and generally against WP guidelines -- see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments) to delete other editors' comments on Talk pages, unless they are completely off-topic or unconstructive. --macrakis (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did request that this be discussed before you make your mod. So I must apologise for undoing your edit again; not trying to be belligerent, just feel that it should remain until we decide what is best. I'm not entirely unopposed to your modification (actually shared your thoughts some a while back), but the material that you removed was extracted from the cited sources. I can appreciate that it loosely discusses "culture". However, as the spreading of Greek and Latin were related to certain cultural and political forces those passages were placed there because of their relevance to the expansion of Greek in the east. Originally, it was thought that placing the material you deleted in a different section would sound patchy or duplicitous (and would still require a reference to language). I think the information is rather helpful in understanding certain synergies, and believe that it should be included somewhere. How do you think we could improve this? Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Regretfully, I can't support the deletion of cited content based on curt opinions, with no provision of supporting information. If the content (either as-is or reworded) cannot be moved to another section of equal relevance, then I believe it should remain. Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I already sent my greetings and congratulations to Tasos I should also extend them to you. You should also take the trouble and check your mail. I sent you a little something I hope you will find enjoyable--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have your feedback here, in case your scientific background or your sources could help us. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good then, thnx. Can you propose a new wording for that passage? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Macedonia naming dispute. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
You removed verifiable sourced material without discussion. I then reverted your action and requested that you discuss the matter on the Talk page, as recommended by our best-practice guidelines (see "The Bold-Revert-Discuss Cycle). Having failed to read or respond to my comment, you left an edit comment [1] asking whether I had read yours (I assume that was not intended to be provocative). Edit summaries are useful for recording the reason for making an edit, or for adding simple comments. They are not part of our dispute resolution process and they should never be used in place of proper discussion.
You should be aware that the Macedonia naming dispute is the subject of an ongoing Arbitration Commitee case and that any disruptive behaviour may result in your being sanctioned. You will also see that I have not reverted your revert, since I have no interest in edit warring. However, if you don't explain the reasons why you have removed material that is prima facie verifiable and relevant to the article, I will restore the material and will seek sanctions against you in the event of further removal. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheffield, I must respectfully disagree here. 3rdAlcove made an obvious good-faith edit with a well argued, substantial rationale in his edit summary [2] (with which, incidentally, I agree.) Your edit summary, in turn, contained nothing substantial about the validity of the material except a vague assertion that it was "verifiable". That missed the point of 3rd's rationale, and he was right in pointing that out to you. In this situation, you are not in a position to blame him for not discussing – the BRD cycle would in fact demand that you go start discussing.
But anyway, that whole part of the article is the source of no end of grief, and as I've often said, that's because its whole design and structure is fundamentally flawed anyway. Will nobody finally put it out of its misery and scrap it altogether?
3rd 3rdAlcove, I noticed you also made a remark about my map sketch. I didn't have good material for the ancient territory there to work from. If you have some better source map to use, would you let me know? Thanks. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to disagree on who is expected to start any discussion. My reading of WP:BRD says that after a revert, the editor who made the initial bold edit has the choice of agreeing with the revert, which leads to a consensus, or disagreeing, which leads to a discussion. If every editor who reverted a bold edit was then expected to then begin a discussion, or just explain the reasoning behind their revert, then our recent changes patrollers would suddenly become a lot busier, and only POV pushing and subtle vandalism would benefit.
I presume that last paragraph above is directed at 3rdAlcove rather than me, since I do not recall commenting on any maps. (3rd is of course an abbreviation for a username, not the word "third".) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course yes, I meant to address him - didn't even occur to me my "3rd" was actually introducing the third paragraph. Sorry for the confusion. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Σε ικετεύω πες μου ότι ο εφιάλτης αυτός με τα μέιλ έχει τελειώσει γιατί θα μου 'ρθει ταμπλάς. Έλαβες κι άλλο;;;;; Νόμιζα ότι είχα ξεμπερδέψει... Όσο για την έκπτωση τι να πω... λυπάμαι μα δεν μπορώ να σε βοηθήσω. Κανά καφέ (πικρό μετά από αυτό το κάζο) να τον κεράσω, αλλά μετά την τελευταία παταγωδώς αποτυχούσα απόπειρα να σε παρασύρω στο άντρο της ουζορακομελοκατανυκτικής απωλείας και στις ακόλαστες ατραπούς της ανεξέλεγκτης κατάχρησης καφεΐνης [3], θεωρώ πιθανότερο να τον πιούμε στον Σείριο μαζί με τους υπόλοιπους ΕΛ παρά σε αυτή εδώ την διάσταση, φίλε Βασίλη--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Σ' έχασα μα δε σε ξέχασα. Αν εξακολουθείς να βλέπεις αυτή τη σελίδα σου εύχομαι να την περνάς όμορφα ό,τι κι αν κάνεις τα Χριστούγεννα. Τις πιο θερμές μου ευχές λοιπόν και μας θυμάσαι... μέχρι να μας ξεχάσεις.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Albanian pederasty. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Σ' ευχαριστώ πολύ για τις ευχές και που με θυμήθηκες. Η έκπληξη ήταν πολύ ευχάριστη κι ελπίζω -έστω κι έτσι- να τα λέμε πότε-πότε. Α... και καλό μας καλοκαιράκι! --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)έστω κι έτσι[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Macedonia naming dispute. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
