Greece article[edit]

Re: Usigned comment by User:212.251.123.49 well, too bad you cannot ignore the tone or the curse words ^_^ Project2501a | Project2501a 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--What I'm saying is, be reasonable in your edits. Don't troll, don't use weasel-wording to infuse articles with your agenda, and don't ignore valid criticisms. Porfyrios 09:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, you're right, this is a very touchy subject people feel stongly in favor of. Seeing that i should be busy fixing some SQL Triggers, i'll do that as soon as I got time. Should be easy. Project2501a | User Talk:Project2501a 10:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA World Wind[edit]

I saw you use NASA World Wind; it should be quite good. Einai pragmati kalytero apo to google earth? I tried downloading it but the download window indicated that it would take over one hour to download! I waited for 20 minutes and it was still downloading. Is there a quicker way of doing it? Euxarixtw. Politis 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing. WorldWind uses NASA's own data, as well as anything else on the public domain. Google Earth developers also purchase aerophotographies from commercial vendors, as their program is not open-source (despite having a nifty shareware version). For this reason, Google Earth trumps WorldWind in one area, and one area only, which is extreme zoom-ins of major cities in the world. As far as our country is concerned, this translates to Google Earth being better for zooming in on two specific parts of Greece, where there is high-res coverage : Attica and a small part of the Pelloponese (γύρω απ'την Τρίπολη).

Everything else, NASA's World Wind does much better. The user interface, the map of the globe, rotating the globe... everything seems polished, and much better programmed. First time you return to Google Earth after using World Wind, you are going to be asking yourself "why does Google's Earth look like a badly patched football?". The difference really is that big.

By all means take the time to download World Wind -- even if you're on dialup, it's worth the effort. As long as you don't expect city zoom-ins, NASA's program is a far, far better depiction of our world. Tell me what you think when you've installed it.. Porfyrios 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, in fact, google is the only place, anywhere on the internet or in books που βρίσκω το προγονικό και σχεδόν ακατοίκητο χωριό μας - και με τόση λεπτομέρεια. Will contact you when I download nasa (71 percent downloaded and still waiting). Politis

Ένα καλό του World Wind είναι ότι αν ενεργοποιήσεις την επιλογή "Placenames" πάνω δεξιά, σου βγάζει ονομασίες και για το πιο μικρό χωριό (έχω βρει και χωριά των 100 κατοίκων να αναφέρονται πάνω στον χαρτή). Google Earth, on the contrary, mainly relies on Google Community's own efforts to create placemarks for countries such as Greece ; with all the ommissions and errors this sort of set-up is bound to bring with it (well, being in Wikipedia as we are, you surely know what I'm talking about :-D) Porfyrios 13:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My village has 12 people (max). The download was completed. I pressed the relevant buttons and then, tsaf!, it disappeared. Ande pali apo thn arxh! It may be easier if you respond by clikcing on my user name and going there. Ta leme argotera. Politis 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sou esteila email (I think that I worked out how to use it). ––––

About OPION[edit]

Πορφυριε γεια σου. Ειδα τις αλλαγες πυ εκανες στο οριον. σχετικα με τα citation needed : Οταν λεω slave labor εννοω το να αγοραζει κοπελες και να τις εκδιδει. Μαλλον δεν χρησιμοποιησα τον σωστο ορο αλλα τα εγγλεζικα που ξερω ειναι.. αστα να πανε. Οσον αφορα την εκδοση γυναικων ηταν θεμα στην εκπομπη του τριανταφυλοπουλου που γενικα σαν πηγη τη θεωρω αξιοπιστη γιατι την επιβεβαιωσαν πολλοι συνεργατες του χρηστιδη. Αν βρεις καταλληλο ορο για το slave labor αλλαξε το. User:Panosfidis

Γειά σου Πάνο. Για να μιλήσουμε για slave labour, πρέπει, απ'όσο γνωρίζω, να πρόκειται για καταναγκαστική έκδοση γυναικών παρά την θέλησή τους -- δηλαδή τις φρικτές ιστορίες που ακούμε με απαγωγές, ουσιαστικά, γυναικών που δεν θέλουν να εκδίδονται, και τον εξαναγκασμό τους στην πορνεία από τα κυκλώματα σωματεμπορίας μέσω εγκλεισμού, σωματικής βίας και εκβιασμών. Εάν, αντίθετα, μιλάμε για σωματεμπορία γυναικών που οικειοθελώς συμμετέχουν στο "επάγγελμα" (έστω και αν αυτό γίνεται λαθραία και χωρίς καταγραφή τους στην αστυνομία, όπως προβλέπει ο νόμος) καταλληλότερος όρος νομίζω ότι είναι το "human trafficking" (αν και ορισμένες φορές χρησιμοποιείται και για την πρώτη περίπτωση). Για ποιό από τα δύο πρόκειται? Porfyrios 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o.k. αλλαξα τις εκφρασεις και χρησιμοποιησα λιγο πιο <<σοφτ>> λεξεις. τωρα ειναι καλυτερο. Θελει βεβαια λιγο περισσοτερο περιεχομενο οσον αφορα τα παιχνιδια (βρειτε τις διαφορες απαντηστε την ερωτηση κλπ κλπ ) ---User:Panosfidis

Για αποφυγή παρεξηγήσεων...[edit]

Χαιρετώ! Το ότι κάποιος έχει δικαίωμα να γράφει την γνώμη του δεν σημαίνει ότι καθορίζει το τι είναι 'πολιτικά ορθό' ούτε το ποιά είναι ή δεν είναι η αλήθεια. Θα πρέπει να σε πληροφορήσω ότι το wikipedia δεν φτιάχτηκε για δοξάσει, αλλά ούτε και για να θάψει κανένα. Σκοπό είναι η όσο το δυνατό πιο σφαιρική, αντικειμενική και δίκαιη προβολή κάθε θέματος για την ενημέρωση του κάθε ενδιαφερομένου. Δεν έχει δικαίωμα ο χρήστης του wikipedia να χρησιμοποιεί την ελευθερία που του δίδεται για να επιβάλει σε ολο το internet την δική του εκδοχή των πραγμάτων. Μη τεκμηριωμένες απόψεις και εμπαθείς διατυπώσεις είναι ενάντια και στην ακαδημαϊκή δεοντολογία και στην προσπάθεια της wikipedia για αντικειμενική ενημέρωση. Ότι λέω το λέω απολύτως φιλικά και χωρίς καμία πρόθεση κόντρας ή προσβολής. unsigned

Καμμία παρεξήγησις φίλτατε. Ευχαριστώ για το μάθημα του τί είναι και τί δεν είναι η wikipedia, και πώς δικαιούμαι (!) να χρησιμοποιώ τις ελευθερίες μου σ'αυτή. Αν επιμένεις να αφαιρείς οποιαδήποτε καταγεγραμμένη δήλωση των αγαπημένων σου πολιτικών προσώπων κρίνεις ότι δεν τους τιμά, είναι δικό σου πρόβλημα. Προσωπικά δεν βρίσκω καμμία "εμπάθεια" στην αυτούσια αναδημοσίευση, αμφιλεγόμενων ως προς το περιεχόμενο, αλλά υπαρκτών και καταγεγραμμένων δηλώσεων -- κρίνω μάλιστα ότι ανταποκρίνεται πλήρως στον εγκυκλοπαιδικό χαρακτήρα της wikipedia, αντιθέτως με τις θλιβερές προσπάθειες κάποιων να λογοκρίνουν οποιαδήποτε "σκιά" στον λαμπρό βίο των πολιτικών τους ινδαλμάτων. Περαιτέρω συζητήσεις για το θέμα παρακαλώ να γίνονται στις ανάλογες discussion pages κάθε λήμματος και όχι στην σελίδα μου. Γειά χαρά. Porfyrios 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Democracy (Greece)[edit]

Discussion moved to talk:New Democracy (Greece)

ELAS[edit]

Porgyrie, hilia signomi gia to remove, den to ixera.. Sxediaza pantos na to diamorfoso. User.194.63.235.139

Τότε σε παρεξήγησα, συγγνώμη. Γι'αυτό τον λόγο πάντως είναι καλύτερο να χρησιμοποιείς το "preview" button και να μην κάνεις τις αλλαγές σου σε πολλά μικρά τμήματα, καθώς μπορεί την ίδια στιγμή να διαμορφώνουν το άρθρο και άλλοι χρήστες. Porfyrios 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks gia ti simvouli!!! User.194.63.235.139

Foreign relations of Greece[edit]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

Please also see Wikipedia:Naming conflict, under which rules Wikipedia normally uses the term "Republic of Macedonia", not "former Yugoslav..." -- ChrisO 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Block by PMA[edit]

Does honorable administrator, mr. PMA care to explain why I have been blocked for "POV edits, article degradation, insulting administrators, violating policy"? Seems to me like a reaction to my criticism of said administrator's unexplained reverts in [1]. As can be seen in my edit summaries, as well as my contributions to the discussion page, I have not been trying to push POV, but in fact, was attempting to engage in discussion over the dispute[2], which is more than can be said about the "opposing" edits of either user Adam Carr [3], or the admin PMA [4], both of them lacking either accompanying summaries, or talk page justification. Do note that Wikipedia's policy on naming conflicts [5] of "description rather than prescription" has been pointed out to me by ChrisO only after my edits, so there cannot be made an argument about myself having ignored relevant policy warnings. Not to mention the fact that excluding the designation FYROM under this policy is still debatable ; the country uses this appelation to enter international organisations and sign bilateral treaties, so the term is certainly self-descriptive.

What it all comes down to, I'm afraid, is a spiteful reaction on the part of administrator PMA, whose unexplained reverts I criticised on his talk page, and whose friend, Adam Carr, I earlier reported for violation of the 3 Revert Rule[6].

All this apparently embiterred administrator PMA, who, instead of trying to justify his reverts (or engage me in conversation), decided to leave my comments unanswered, and simply ban me from editing Wikipedia in response. I believe this behaviour is unbecoming of an administrator, and therefore appeal my blocking. Porfyrios 13:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter that ChrisO called you for it post facto -your edits violated policy - especially your POV pushing of the silly/stupid Greek nationalist "FRYOM" view - i did not tolerate nationalism and political games at Curzon Line, Polish Corridor, Oder-Neisse line, Silesia, various Cyprus related articles and Saddam/Iraq and i will not tolerate it over Macedonia. PMA 13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so you block me from editing, on the basis of what you decree to consist "silliness" in accordance to your point of view. Without warning nor response. Because, apparently, tolerance for such "silly", "nationalistic" views (both offensive characterisms, which I strongly protest, by the way) is below you, and civility should be expected by editors, but can be brushed away by admins. Nice of you to clear that up for me. Porfyrios 13:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your email[edit]

Hello there. I have been blocked [7] by administrator PMA over a content dispute in the article about Foreign Policy of Greece, and, although I undestand that your opinion is opposite to mine on the matter and coincides with that of PMA (or, perhaps, because of it), I'd like to hear your thoughts on the fairness of such a block.

Hi, in response to your email, I have surveyed the situation, and whilst you are correct in thinking that I take an opposite stance, I have to say that there are some irregularities to your block. On the first hand, PMA shouldn't have used rollback in reverting a content edit. It is I understand a bit of a faux-pas, and I restrict use of rollback to cases of blatant vandalism per WP:VAN. He also should not have blocked someone he was in a content dispute with.

However, your behaviour probably did merit a ban — as well as that of some of the other contributors. The following is a list of things you should try to avoid when editing Wikipedia:

Reverting without discussion on the talk page.
Join an article, make controversial changes with inflammatory edit summaries.
Describe the edits of other people as "nonsense".

That said, I'm going to unblock you as tiresome as dealing with this kind of behaviour is, you didn't merit the ban. I'm going to inform the blocking admin, PMA of this and explain that if you continue disrupting the page, to ask me, and I will ban you next time. - FrancisTyers · 17:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also contested the ban by an email to arbitration commitee a couple of hours after sending you the mail ; I suppose that appeal will not be considered now. On my description of an edit as "nonsense", keep in mind the context within which this happened. I raised certain points in the discussion pages of the contributors, and I also made relevant arguments in my summary edits ; yet Adam Carr and PMA continued to revert my changes without so much as touching upon the reasoning behind my edits (unlike the subsequent edit of ChrisO, who provided his counterarguments and the relevant wp policy). Other than the "nonsense" characterism (quite mild in comparison to the invective hurled at me), I don't see how I have been disruptive in this matter ; especially in light of my willingness to debate this matter rather than challenge opponents to edit wars, as others have done.Porfyrios 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:2004 Greek election results by prefecture.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded, Image:2004 Greek election results by prefecture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

geraki 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Greek public domain covered works produced by the government -- seems like I will have to verify this (or campaign for it, as the case may be ;-)). Thanks for replacing the image with one that serves the same purpose, without raising copyright concerns. Porfyrios 09:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbitrary Conclusion[edit]

Hi. I think that it is one thing to "believe in God" and another "being religious". Someone may be a "believer" - believe in "God" (any "God" or a specific "God")- without being "religious" - adhere to "religion". Just because most Greeks said they "believe in God", it does not mean that they adhere to "religion", nor that this perecentage considers themselves "religious", nor that they are the "most religious" people after Cyprus and Malta. Also, in the context it was put, "most religious" may imply fervent belief (even relatively). However, the Eurobarometer did not measure how strongly people in these countries feel about the statement "I believe in God".

Synod of Jerusalem[edit]

See Talk:Synod_of_Jerusalem. Luis F. Gonzalez 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Hellas On Line[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hellas On Line, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hellas On Line is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hellas On Line, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 02:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plevris and LAOS[edit]

Hello Porfyrios. I've sent a similar note to Michalis Famelis, and I wanted to notify you, too. There's been a systematic effort to expunge your edits detailing Plevris's hate screeds from the articles in question (with no given justification). Keep an eye on the articles if you can, because the neonazi thugs seem determined to whitewash the entries on their little furhers. 195.189.142.146 01:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll keep an eye on it, so far as my real-life obligations allow (when it rains... and the rest of that saying). Porfyrios 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

We do have a policy of not biting the newcomers, and it has pretty high priority. It also does extend to treating newcomers more leniently in 3RR issues, like it or not, this is long-standing practice. There was no need for your sarcastic and hostile comments, especially since you saw that I (as an admin) was already on the case. There was nothing constructive in your comments that wasn't already covered. Also, as you mentioned "penalties" , you might want to look up the blocking policy, which states that blocks are preventive, not punitive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointers. I've read the 3RR and it seems to be lenient vis-a-vis newcomers in the sense of requiring a previous warning, not in the sense of allowing for violations in spite of previous warnings. In any case, I think that your deletion of my comments, along with your choice to address disapproval to a third party, rather than the poster of the comments himself, was in fact much more uncivil than any perceived "hostility" in my tone. Porfyrios 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as "lack of anything constructive" is concerned, I only think of it as fair (and constructive) to notify a user when reporting him for violation of WP:Policy. Porfyrios 15:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NewDemocracyLogo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NewDemocracyLogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Porfyrios! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Gerasimos Arsenis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Psarros.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Psarros.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]