User talk:GreekWarrior

Welcome!

Hello GreekWarrior, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Courtkittie (talk) July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Erm, who the hell are you?

La Prensa

Hello ! I just noticed your message, sorry for the little delay before the answer. Very glad to see you in the community, that's a very positive step for everybody !

Regarding the subject at hand, it is obvious that your knowledge of the topic is very good, as are your feelings over the matter. Given the policy of Wikipedia, however, only the "knowledge" part is allowed in, not the "feelings", and it can sometimes be honestly difficult to tell one from the other.

If you see that example [1] of the typical difference between your view of the article, you can notice that the version which I am reverting to has a more general and nuanced view of the matter ("However, the paper was also critical of the nascent ruling junta which succeeded Somoza"...); your version tends to feel like it aims at demonstrating something; for instance, the beginning:

It is now largely known now, that La Prensa recieved large amounts of funding from The CIA. It espoused a violent overthrowal of the regime and fully supported the American Proxy Army, the Contras, in their attacks against Nicaraguan Governmental Targets and Civilian Infrastructure (CIA Director William Casey's orders to attack 'Soft Targets').

Compare to something like (I know nothing about the topic so you'll have to provide the actual information)

La Prensa was founded in X by X, who was X (like, a well-known right-wing politician, a Human right activist, a religious personlity ?). It was intended as a [political / news / ...] publication (perhaps put something like the motto of the paper here, the way its director described it, ...)

It had the following stance upon the following topics. [Before/during/after] the following event, it took the following stance, notably saying this when that happened.

That, this and that led to suspicions from those that it had pro-US sympathies; accusations of [being funded by the CIA/ watching Foxnews too much / ...] arose from these people (citation/reference if possible).

In (long afterward), the release of the following documents (citation/reference) proved that the following accusations were [true/false/to be nuanced]

I hope that you see what I mean. I would encourage you to start a new section on the talk page of the article, suggest a version, and see how it shapes. It is interesting, for instance, to see what sort of things which seem straightforward to you can be difficult or dubious for others, and se when and how explanations, references, etc. are necessary. I can help if necessary.

Have you seen Ken Loach's Carla's Song ?

Thank you for the spirit of it ! Good work and cheers ! Rama 13:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll get around to changing my draft as soon as possible. Btw, I haven't seen 'Carla's song', but I intend to when I have the time. Thanks for the advice on how to structure my redraft as well.--GreekWarrior 13:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You called Nikos Sampson 'a good man'????? With an attitude like that, no wonder there's nwever going to be any hope of reconciliation on Cyprus. I take it you're pro-Enosis, fanatically anti-Turk, and want to ethnically cleanse Cyprus of everything non-Greek.......or am I being too subtle in my observation? --User:Expatkiwi 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

From a Greek Cypriot in the US

Dude you should not be such an enosist. Those who supported that dream destroyed the unity of Cyprus by not respecting the 1960 constitution. Then the Turks took it a step further.

I am opposed to the Annan plan, and as far as the EU problems with the Turks - let them answer to their own crimes. They have a lot to come to terms with first. (UNFanatic 04:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Your statements about Turks

Your recent statements about Turks ([2] , [3] and anything similar) are absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I am removing them. Do not attempt to replace them. Do not repeat any similar inflammatory statements about any other person or group or nation of persons. This is a final warning. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you are a sockpuppet for Expatapologist.

I assure you that I am not. I'm afraid I'll have to block you from editing for a short time if you persist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As you repeated the same xenophobic rant, I have blocked you for a short time to show that I mean it. Because of the nature of the offence, I shall also have to protect your talk page from editing. You may email me at minorityreport@bluebottle.com --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a notice about your block on WP:AN [4]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your block is now finished and this page is unprotected. Please feel welcome o use your account for all purposes except the kind of offensive speech that blocked you for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

You need to source statements. Not the Bible or Qur'an (you should tell which translation for either)... however, what you did was interpret primary text material... which is something we don't do. Biblical and Qur'anic scholars do that. I left a message on the talk page which you must look at to that regard. You need to quote notable sources on this. Your own interpretation of the two books is not allowed since wikipedia is not a repository for original thought. gren グレン 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I typically prefer not being called an idiot. Your interpretations are not common knowledge so please read about verifiability, sources and all that jazz. As a start referemce the Ali Sina page or the Ibn Warraq book... that is the minimum you must do. Using passive voice is a problem because it's sourceless. gren グレン 03:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop being a racist bigot

You've made your anti-Turkish/anti-Islamic agenda very clear. I suggest you find something more constructive to do with your life than try and spread it here. You seem very similar to Digenis Akritas/Chomsky Fan who trawled the cyprus-forum.com forums, is this you? --A.Garnet 00:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Muslims are not a race, secondly Moose you little apologist for Islam, Muslims have NO guarantee or 'Right' not to have their satanic religion subjected to critical analysis.

No i'm not Moose. You are not showing critical analysis, you are a little hate filled boy and nothing else. --A.Garnet 12:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? You couldn't answer my allegations, stop accusing people of Islamophobia, it makes about as much sense as Naziphobia. Who are you anyway? --GreekWarrior 17:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said, you are not capable of critical analysis, you can criticse but not analyse, since your analysis is based on hate filled propogandist rubbish. --A.Garnet 21:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok my monolingual english friend (as are all the other lazy english who come to Cyprus), seeing as you don't have the guts to tell me whom you are from the Forum, I will leave it at that, but it is indicative of your rather pathetic and weak willed personality if you don't even have the guts to admit whom you are to a 17 year old. But that is besides the point, when I make a point on Wikipedia I back it up with verses from the Queeran, I do not need to write a diatribe, because the Quran speaks for itself when it comes to Critical Analysis. The fact not one of the so called 'scholarly' Muslims who love to deride Ali Sina can answer his allegations against Mohammed shows this point up perfectly. --GreekWarrior 00:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit-summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Izehar 19:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)