User talk:Khirurg

DYK for Death of Aristotelis Goumas

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

25-pic. "Greeks" chart

Gia sou Athinaie.- Please, can you give a hand in the new Greeks galley picture? I am looking for skilled-hand editors so as to perform the chart. I am not that skilled myself in drawing charts.

Here is the final results table:

ANCIENT: Aristotle; Pericles; Alexander the Great; Plato; King Leonidas; Hippocrates; Homer; Herodotus; Socrates; Archimedes.

MEDIEVAL (BYZANTINE) -up to 1500 A.D.-: Hypatia; Alexios Komnenos; Basileios Boulgaroktonos; Gemisthus Pletho.

MODERN -1500 A.D. to 1900 A.D.-: Theodoros Kolokotronis; Georgios Karaiskakis; Lascarina Bouboulina; Ioannis Capodistrias; El Greco; Rigas Feraios .

CONTEMPORARY: Eleftherios Venizelos; Georgios Papanikolaou; Pyrros Dimas; Constantine Cavafy; Archbishop Makarios.

Thank you, I would appreciate your help very much so as to give and end to this subject, at least for the moment. Regards.-Periptero (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best, though I have never done this before, so it may take me some time. I too want it to end, but it seems there are some people determined to prevent it from happening. I mean look at this: [1]. I want to wait and see what will happen with the Leonidas image, but even if it is deleted, it's not like there is a shortage of notable Greeks. But rest assured, that collage will go up, with or without Leonidas, and whether some people like or not. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Been to B.A., and it's one of my favorite cities in the world. Narrowly missed a chance to go there again recently. Athenean (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Τελικα,μαλλον απαξιεις να απαντησεις ποιοι ειναι εκεινοι οι "Αλβανοι" που κατοικουν στη βορειοδυτικη Ελλαδα και αποτελουν ποσοστο μικροτερο του 10% του πληθυσμου της περιοχης και επιμενεις μαλιστα οτι ο εν λογω χαρτης στο αρθρο για τους αλβανους τους απεικονιζει.Lysus.K (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your understanding about proving that I'm not an elephant. Can you help with getting Himara revolt in the dyk nominations page?CoolMartini (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

collage

why dont you use this image for Kolokotronis? Its much more glorious http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Kolokotronis_Theodore.JPG Greco22 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the one from the πεντοχίλιαρο aesthetically, an it's also the most well-known. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I like them also :). Sometimes are also a target for "fallmerayerans" and various anti-greeks

Anyway, I dont support some replacements for this reason but only for representative reasons Greco22 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Phoenice

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Careful. By my count, you're at three reverts. It would not be a good idea to revert again today, even though Hxseek is blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on it, but I'm pretty sure I only have 2 from January 29 [2] [3]. The only other edit I have on that article is from the 26th of January, and it's not a revert. Not that it matters, but just wanted to be sure. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

I can totaly see your passion and love for Greek art, history, and architecture. You reverted my last addition citing it as POV and stating that it was editoralizing. I agree with the latter but not the former. The source I had clearly cites it so, although I did change the order but now I put the text quoted and I added an extra literature source by Arrian.

I know how you feel about him and I am aware of your contribution to this article. I beileve that you try to create a very positive image of him and that I agree with afterall he was a great man in many ways. I also like to think Alexander for all his complexities and idiosyncracies. The Alexander that I understand is a man of great resolve, pushed to move forward by destiny, calculating, intelligent, and wise, but at the same time conflicted, prone to alcoholism, jealous, and at times void of self control. Alexander is an interesting figure in history of the world, as he possesses a sort of flair that comes with ethnic determination yet he is not like the other conquerers. He is not ghengis Khan, or Turkish crusaders or etc. Alexander has a complicated soul, it is my view that in many ways he is the Greek version of Cyrus the Great. Reading Cyropedia from an early age Alexander grows up admiring the Persians, whom during the time of Xerxes he also grows to hate.

To be honest I like the edit the way it is now and I believe that to give a fair view of who Alexander was we have to put to light both his strengths as well as his weaknesses. However I am bised in your favor too having seen your contributions to the article and I think how I would feel if another person interjected a point in my writing and that does not sound appealing to me.

So long story short, I leave it entirely up to you! If you so incline to take down my additional comments, then be it, but if you feel that perhaps presenting the good and the bad, the complicated and the clear, would give Alexander more dimension and make his article more prominent and worthy to read, then by all means let my edits stay. I guess what I am saying is you do not have to respond to this message unless u so incline or wish to share a thought, as I am giving you full authority to revert the edit, but I wish that you wont because if I was invested in Alexander the Great, then I would do all I can to give more than one aspect of his personality. No matter great job and I am becoming more and more interested in Greek history as I read so I am totally infatuated with Persian, Greek, and Ancient history :). Sincerely yours!

Dr. Persi (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. This is not a question of making Alexander look good or bad, it is a question of relevance. The point is, the destruction of Persepolis has nothing to do with Alexander's personality. The section to which you made the additions strictly discusses Alexander's personality and I don't see how the destruction of Persepolis relates to that. Neither does the source you use tie the destruction of Persepolis to Alexander's personality. Whether he ordered the destruction deliberately, whether it was a lapse of judgment, or whether it was an accident (it happened several months after the taking of Persepolis), we'll never really know, but whatever happened, I just don't see a connection to his personality. Btw, I have nothing against Persia and the Persian people, I have been to Persepolis and visited Cyrus' Tomb (and was quite impressed), but I really feel your additions, while sourced, stray from the subject of the personality section too much. Regards, Athenean (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a move of the content to the appropriate section then? I agree but where in the article do you think this data fits? Dr. Persi (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, per WP:LABEL, considering the tone (e.g. "savage orgy"), I don't think it fits anywhere in an encyclopedia. A brief mention of the Persepolis incident is already included in the article, I think that's sufficient. Athenean (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tone is as per article, and it is as per that author who is very reliable a historical fact. We should not choose to censor certain data on the basis of its tone. I can cut out the "savage" from the text if you want. That still should be included becuase if we are to give a full picture of Alexander the Great, it shouldnt be just that he is "amply intelligent" or that he has "great self control" or that he is "erudite" but also that he sometimes is ok with orgies and such as well. I am going to add that to Persepolis section then. Are we in agreement? Dr. Persi (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I moved the word "savage" and removed the section as per your discussio from "personality" to Persia. How do you do now? Is this acceptable? I even added "according to a scholar..." so as not to give the perception that this statement is widespread. cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. "Violent orgy" instead of "Savage orgy"? That is hardly a change. Look, the thing is, here in wikipedia, we have to use neutral wording and avoid such language. I'm sure I could find sources that use similar language for the deeds of the Persians during Xerxes' invasion of Greece, for the Fall of Constantinople, for the capture of Jerusalem by the First Crusade (talk about savage), but as you can see, we don't use such language in those articles. We have to stick by WP:NPOV and avoid such colorful language. While authors such as the one you cite are not constrained to do so and can use whatever they see fit, in wikipedia it's different. I've been editing here since 2007, and I know what I'm talking about. Even about the Holocaust we do not use such language. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that you think the coverage of Alexander in the article is too "positive" and that's why you want to use such language, but that goes completely against the spirit of NPOV. WP:NPOV is one of the pillars of wikipedia, and we have to abide by it, like it or not.Athenean (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it goes both ways, NPOV also entails coverage of both data and I am sure there are a lot of articles or sub articles that such "language" on Xerxes with such ease. I get the feeling that we are trying to white wash everything here on Wiki. Let me work on it. I will get back to you. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here, look at the page now. Also show me the "source" where it shows that Xerxes the Great allowed Persian troops to kill and rape Athenians, then started to kill each other over the spoils ;P (although I am sure you can find a similar source for some other atrocity, as I am sure these old monarchs were all in it). So tell me what you think of this change I made?. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, as I said before you have complete authority as I am not well read in Alexander the Great so feel free to go as you wish. I simply hoped to follow in a path that is approved by you. To me it looks fair now but again up to you. Peace. Dr. Persi (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am awfully busy right now, though I did look at your recent changes and they seemed in the right direction. I will think about it a little bit more. Athenean (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

After some thought, I removed the whole "murder and rape" thing as excessively graphic verbiage that serves no particular purpose other than shock value. Other than that, I think we're ok. Though the article suffers from an overuse of primary sources, the quote from Arrian has merit and I will leave it there. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a mistake on your part, as you will devalue the article, in what I personally believe to be a white washed account. But as you wish. No worries ! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Defending Armenia

Seems like you've been to many countries but not Armenia in your info page. Yet you are still talking about the armenian genocide. I think it is because of your greek origin. Please try to be neutral. Thanks. 92.45.12.22 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Paranoia in Albanians

Take in account that Zjarri-Aegist, unexplained revert-ready activity is closely connected with their irc off-wiki interaction.Alexikoua (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

I also hold accounts: user:Besokontrollo, user:Sepastaj, and user:Mother Albania, so we met earlier and you asked me this question already. I have good reason to believe that those accounts were stolen the passwords, because I edited from public computers. I'll stick with this one and not change it anymore now. My problem is that I really have no clue how to do the committed identity, so that I feel safer. From the public university where I editied from there are a lot of students that play password games. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lost passwords, how interesting. I think I've heard that one before. Also interesting that you created this account January 2, but still edited as Sepastaj till January 16. I think I know what's going on here (and who you really are). You do realize that if you get caught, considering who I know you are, it will be indef, right? All I have to do is file an SPI. Athenean (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, but I told you the truth. Why did you remove your posting at talk:Albanians? --Brunswick Dude (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

AE

I will take back direct accusations against u if u take back u'r accusation that I need to be blanket banned coz I'm some kind of malicious editor. If I'm fiery, I'll watch this. However, I have a lot to contribute, and am certainly not some kind of phobe-Hellene. Quite the opposite Hxseek (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Deal. I had already struck my request that you be topic banned as a gesture of good will, but I now removed it altogether. I understand that you are genuinely interested in the subject and have a lot to contribute, and I also understand you are no ανθέλλην, and never claimed that you were one, no worries. Peace. Athenean (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll change minenshortly.( iPads are too cumbersome) Hxseek (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

√ Hxseek (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Macedonia

Greetings! Could you please check the above and possibly write up some better content for that page. Do you think it should stand as an article or is the material (if anything significant is there at all) is already covered in other articles? Thanks. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you're still around. I think there is enough material for an article, and I agree the article is in terrible shape at the moment. However, I am currently busy with Ancient Macedonians, which is taking up all my energy. Actually, I was wondering if you would be willing to participate there, there is quite a debate going on. Maybe we can work on Ottoman Macedonia afterwards. Athenean (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your brilliant argumentative skills. A Macedonian (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. Athenean (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! Could use them at Michael Kefalianos.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 10:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Khirurg. You have new messages at Dr. Persi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aeolian vs NW Greek

Hi. Apart from Hammond, who else (ie something based on inscriptionary evidence, etc) has argued that Macedonian might have rather been more akin to Aeolian ? And if so, was this more pertinent in lower vs upper Macedonia. I know that Hatzopoulos discusses this in that Congress in Thessaloniki, which is up on HistoryofMacedonia website.

Also, do u agree with the idea that Doric and NW GReek dialect groups aren;t really distinct dialect groups, because they do not possess any common innovations which Aetolian, Ionioan or Arcado-Cypriot do not have ? It is as if they are collection of localized, somewhat simpler dialects ? (And i am not necessarily agreeing with Chadwick's hypothesis)

Hxseek (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC

Lete article

Hi Athinaios, I've noticed that the article of Lete is vandalised. I also, notice that the name of the village is written in slavic. What's the point of the slavic name in an ancient village? Besides, the only slavs settled (much later) in the area were Bulgarians. truthmaniac 9 February 2011

Sock

Guess who is socking? I had from the very start suspicion that he might be but now it's more than obvious that he wants to finish his unfinished job as Sulmues (for example nominating for ga article the previous account had a great desire make, and delisting ga articles his previous account didn't like)Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But his confidence leads me to suspect that he has done some gimmick with the IPs and thinks he is safe from CU (I'm guessing he changed geolocation, that's why he's doing this). Gather as much evidence as you can, but be careful not to post it on-wiki until the right time, per WP:BEANS. Athenean (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Take also into account that the 'retired' tag was Sulmue's favorite strategy when he witness a 'defeat in his national povs'.Alexikoua (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages: Vote and scope

Hi. Check out Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#On vote Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ioannina Vilayet

Since you have participated in this discussion there is a new debate there. It appears that user Zjarri. doesn't consider you an 'experienced editor' since he collectivelly called a number of editors to participate.Alexikoua (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

? revert

I don't think it quantifies as a revert, does it ? I did not remove your entire content - I left in your re-amendment of the stuff on PCT!

I merely removed a redundant line: The majority of the words are Greek, several inscriptions have revealed some tendencies toward Doric Greek and Aeolic Greek; on the other hand, there can be found some Illyrian and Thracian elements.[50]

I have no issue with any its contecnt, however, it has become redundant because what it says is covered by the newly put linguistics sources. Ie the interpretation of the inscriptions is covered by your line on the PCT deals with the NW GReek component and my addition of Hatzopuolos discusses his take on Aeolic contribution. The lexical/ vocabulary issue is also covered well in the assessment in mid-paragraph. So the line from Borza merely duplicates stuff already covered later.

If you absolutely disagree with me, please let me know and I will re-insert it Slovenski Volk (talk)

It is a partial revert, and as such it is a clear cut violation of your revert parole. That much is beyond doubt. I also also don't agree with the removal of the content itself, as the PCT isn't the only inscription in Macedonian. As the Companion makes clear, there are several other fragmentary inscriptions, though the PCT is so far the only substantial inscription. Athenean (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I can put it back in; athough the content is already covered. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, are you going to, or not? Athenean (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

settle down, its done (I am a surgeon, you know, outside Wikiworld). Yep, it's put back in. I just split Borza's part in two. The part on inscriptions follows were it was originally, the part on "the majority f words are Greek" occurs couple lines later, in the lexical discussion. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe you should focus more on your surgeries than on wikipedia stuff. God knows your patients would appreciate it :) Athenean (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have't killed anyone, yet. I think the language paragraph has shaped up OK. Next i hope to add the stuff on lifestyle, which I earlier presented on the talk page, and will edit in the few points you brought up on it. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, Athenean. I think you are out of line by calling my addition that "Masson and Dubois interpreted" the PCT as NW Greek as "hedging". Firstly, check your definition of what hedging is. There is no subvertive undertone in my addition, it is merely representing fact. Masson and Dubois interpreted the PCT as NW Greek. As you know, the PCT does not possess anything about it which makes it's categorization as NW Greek unequivocal. In fact, it has all the somewhat discordant features that certain of the glosses and names do. That is why that even after its dicovery, a concensus is lacking. Thus to insist that on leaving the sentence as it stands is a misrepresentation of the situation and what the sources say about it. I think you have been rather fair and reasonable so far, and I don't want to halt the progress we are slowly making, however, we need to represent the sources truthfully, and as an educated editor, you should agree with. I do accept edits of yours which are fair enough {eg I agree that my addition of Hall's reflection on the matter is perhaps unneccessary} Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:What should be attributed to Masson and Dubois is the argument that Macedonian was NW Greek based on the language of the tablet. However, that the language of the tablet is a form of Greek is beyond doubt. I can practically understand all of it (as could any reasonably educated fluent Greek speaker), and I don't speak a word of Illyrian, Thracian, Brygian, etc... Athenean (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, none of the other claims in the article are similarly hedged. Nor are they attributed to specific authors ("X says", "According to Y and Z"), so I don't see why that should be the case for the PCT. In general, I am against dropping names of authors in the main text, as it assumes our readers know who they are and is somewhat esoteric. Now, that the language of the tablet is a form of Greek is beyond doubt. I can practically understand all of it (as could any reasonably educated fluent Greek speaker), and I don't speak a word of Illyrian, Thracian, or Brygian. What needs to be hedged, and is suitably hedged is that because the language of the tablet is NW, that XMK is NW Greek. Now that should be hedged, and it is ("the tablet has been used to support the argument that XMK was NW Greek"). However, that the language of the tablet is a form of Greek is beyond dispute. I have yet to see a source that says otherwise. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I accept that. It's quite interesting you can basically understand all of it Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hellenic Nomarchy

Seems this atricle needs to pass the nomination. Thanks for your time c-p it.Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#Armenian_Genocide

The section you started is now apparently treated as a majority-wins vote... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Diren Yardimli will be reported for edit-warring. It is the only way to deal with the situation. Athenean (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done [4]. Feel free to pitch in. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd rather not since I am obviously Armenian... the only Navajo-speaking one to boot. Talk about seeing ghosts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

He got blocked, so be on the lookout for socks. And thanks for all the help. Athenean (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for cleaning up that strange bit in fustanella. (User:Manytexts) 110.32.241.53 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping the main, central idea what encyclopedia really should be. WhiteWriter speaks 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cupcaker is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Confederatre. Kavas (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. You should file a WP:SPI, or else post on WP:AN/I since this case is quite obvious. I can't take any action myself, I am not an administrator. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm glad you liked it. I am now working on Early History ie the Argead origins, Herodotus' accounts of conquest, etc; into which I'll incorporate the Geographic origins section. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy Nowruz!!!

Happy Nowruz man! I am sure you do not celebrate but accept this as a celebatory gesture nontheless. Hope you and your loved ones have a great and fruitful year! Dr. Persi (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much my friend, all the best to you too. Athenean (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC, I am imposing a mutual interaction ban on you and ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) as a reuslt of the AE request you filed against the latter. You are forbidden from reverting their edits, editing their talk page (or any other part of their userspace) or from interacting with or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia with the sole exception of filing a legitimate AE request against them or an appeal against this sanction. You are also to make all reasonable efforts to avoid articles where you know them to be active. Finally, you are cautioned that any future instances of disruption in the area of conflict by either you or ZjarriRrethues may result in an indefinite topic ban for one or both parties. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

India v. South Asia

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

South Asian list

Please participate in the discussion on Talk: List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Circulatory system

[1] Your opinion (or my opinion) of what forms the basis of the circulatory system is irrelevant really. [2] I follow Wikipedia's source policy for my sources, not yours.

Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great reference

In [5] you removed <ref name=AVII8/>. This caused a Cite error at the end of the references section, as described at Template:Reflist#List-defined references. If the reference is no longer needed then please remove it from the references section. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[6]

Please comment there Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sulmues

Hi. I am curious if you know what happened to Sulmues. He was very active in editing certain articles and then suddenly disappeared. What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Fairly obvious who this "Doktor Plumbi" is. Have a look here [7]. Athenean (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that SPI and decided to save a link to it on my userpage because I realised I might find it useful. Keep up a good work!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, you should study the SPI to see how it is done, because it is likely to be necessary again in the future (although it will get easier and easier with each instance of socking). You study the contribs of both accounts, and present the evidence succinctly (say, less than 50 diffs) and professionally (no name calling or anything like that), in a clear and organized manner, then sit back and let the admins do their job. Athenean (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote on article name

Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

3 reverts

May I ask you which article is it? Greek genocide? If so, I can only see two reverts there. One revert of Dr. K^s, one of your edit. --Seksen (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on Greater Albania

Please list the bits that amount to POVs on Greater Albania, contributed by MJDANikhila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJDANikhila (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for talking instead of reverting. Now, regarding your edits:

• [8] There was no "large" Albanian population living under Greek jurisdiction in 1912. A few thousand Chams is not "large".

• [9] You removed perfectly sourced material without explanation, and Chameria is no longer chiefly inhabited by Chams.

• [10] unsourced, "breathing space" is POV.

• [11] unsourced, the "injustice" is POV.

• [12] hasn't faded, it is still very much alive. Also unsourced.

• [13] [14] unexplained removal of sourced material.

• [15] unsourced. Please see WP:OR.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Athenean (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is exactly what you should do....should go on. Now, dismissing my whole contribution is not the correct step. I advise that you take it sentence by sentence and on the points you have reservation than you can raise the red flag.

I have not dismissed wholesale the contributions of others (For example: WWII events. Although i need to know if there was official agreement, put in paper between Italy and Albanian government for the Verlaci policy.So it is irresponsible to dismiss wholesale my contributions.

It is not about me if I get the point, the importance is in relaying NPOV information on an issue. As it stands it is also POV. But it is someone else’s POV and therefore not a POV to you. This is not about me so i discourage you from personalising participation on Wiki project.

It is clear that you have not paid attention as much. If you pay attention “large” relates to Yugoslavia and “lesser degree” to Greece. For Yugoslavia is used “rule”. For Greece is used “jurisdiction”. You can rewrite the sentences to make these clear.

Now, the league of Prizren has no connection at all with the concept of Greater Albania, irrespective of your sources. Sources are not immune from POV and other factors. The league of Prizren could not foresee the 1912 outcome and therefore could not call for a Greater Albania. There was no Albania at the time, and their calls were for Albanian self government within Ottoman Empire. Since the territories (kosovo, chameria, etc) making up Greater Albania were Ottoman Empire to whom was (the suggested) Legue’s expansionist call directed to?

Greater Albania agenda could only exist after the establishment of the Albanian state. In the aftermath of the Balkan wars there was lobbying by the Albanian politicians for inclusion of all territories where Albanians were in majority into the future Albanian state.

That inclusion as wished by the Albanian politicians did not happen hence the emergence of the idea of greater Albania. It is the same as it was with Greece. One cannot say that the Megali Idea preceded the establishment of the Greek state because one did not know the outcome as to where the borders of the Greek state would lie.

The idea of Greater Albania, Megali Idea or Greater Serbia and so on is strictly policy or wish that challenges treaties, agreements.

I object to the whole article in its direction. Is there such a stated policy (Greater Albania/Ethnic Albania) by the current and past Governments of the Republic of Albania, with the exception of the interwar period government under PM Verlaci. Please provide evidence that the Republic of Albania does not recognize the borders with Greece, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo-Serbia and that it has a stated policy defying treaties and agreements?

Kosovo has nothing to do with Republic of Albania as it is an independent state initiated and granted by USA, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the West in general (bar Greece-Spain-Romania-Slovakia-Cyprus).

I am talking a about state policy here no peoples wishes.

There is an implication that the Republic of Albania is responsible for the secession of Kosovo. Please state evidence that Republic of Albania went to unilateral war with Yugoslavia and annexed Kosovo. Kosovo independence is not Greater Albania. It was not fought by the Albanian Army. The articles in Wikipedia are not about “ifs”, for example: “if Kosovo and Albania merge” than that amounts to Greater Albania. That is speculation. --MJDANikhila (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tymvoi

Hi. Might you be so kind as to explain the exact transliteration of the above ? (I gather it relates to burial description). Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is "tumuli (Τύμβοι is plural). Athenean (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck

Then it must be a duck. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%931922)&action=history

The edit warring continues.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ok. The IP address has been blocked. Sockpuppet investigation upgraded the rating on the block.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I can't be online all the time. Athenean (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Universities

I have discussed it. Frankly it is highly irritating when someone throws the baby out with the bathwater on even the smallest change - and one that makes sure the topic is explained properly, so we don't have to discuss whether the Madrasah's are universities again - which without some proper explanation in the article itself is inevitable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You have discussed it, but you haven't obtained consensus. I happen to agree with Gun Powder Ma, there is no need to rehash the definition of what a university is in the lede. Athenean (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? How does that solve the problem of people continually adding Islamic Madrasah's to the article? That problem isn't likely to magically go away without any changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Because a) the definition is already given in medieval university, and b) Lists don't usually include lengthy definitions and ledes. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If a) was an adequate solution then there wouldn't be an issue - I'm not the only one by any means to have added Islamic Madrasah's to the article in even the short time that I've been paying attention to the page.

b) Take a look at List of castles in Cheshire, List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes and List of Sendai International Music Competition winners, the first three featured lists I clicked on. They all have at least a three paragraph lead, so adding a couple of sentences of definition is hardly a problem from that . -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have an alternative solution to the problem that editors (and presumably readers) are getting confused about the inclusion of Islamic Madrasah's in the University list - beyond doing nothing - then I'm more than happy to hear it, maybe there's a better solution than mine out there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So... Do you have a point to make? If so why haven't you made it before? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is, GPM didn't remove anything, only moved one sentence out of the lede and into the body text [16]. By re-adding this sentence [17] to the lede without removing the one in the body text, you are the one introducing duplicate material. Also, the argument that mentioning the Arab world in the lede will lead to less POV-pushing falls completely with this [18]. Rather it seems to be having the opposite effect. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to argue that its less effective than it was before you're going to need to give it a bit longer than 2 weeks. And the guy who added that content bought a reliable source to the table from the Edinburgh University Press, so it can hardly be described as "POV pushing", but if you want to make the point that it'll lead to less arguments then you need to leave it in the lead for more than a couple of weeks to lead to anything other than statistical noise.

Of note I would have reverted his change too as he needs more than one source to make that point.

With regards to the duplicate content I missed that he'd added it further down.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm continuing the discussion on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Now taken to dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Are you saying that I have been engaging in sock-puppetry ?

There has been some suspicious un-logged activity. You might want to check [19]. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't evade. I asked you a simple question, yes or no. Final chance. Athenean (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I can believe you. Athenean (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming to Hellas to party and resuscitate ur economy :) Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know you partied that hard. Don't miss Vergina and Dion while you're there :) Athenean (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not that rich, nor wild. I'll be starting in islands, then might drive from northern Macedonia down to Greece subsequently. Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you really think the fustanella comes from the chiton? Please check this greek documentary because this give me some little questions --Vinie007 10:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, i never heard macedonia uses the fustanella, only Greeks and Albanians so far i know --Vinie007 10:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lesbos

I can agree to the Turkish name being given in the history section because the island was once part of the Ottoman Empire, but not in the lead. None of the reasons given in WP:NCGN for including the name in Turkish in the lede apply. Imbros is a very different case: The island was always inhabited by Greeks and even now there are Greeks. By contrast, there aren't any Turks on Lesbos and never many in the past. Athenean (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact I like alternative names. Constantinople-Konstantinopolis-Poli-Istanbul etc, Edirne-Odrin-Adrianopole-Adrianoupolis etc. However, if there were such rule you mentioned, we have to remove all of them. At first please remove Ανδριανούπολις from Edirne and transfer to appropreate section (if any)　of the article. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like alternative names too, but there are limits. These limits are given in WP:NCGN. Otherwise, anyone could include any alternative name wherever they like, resulting in some pretty weird situations. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

massive vandalism of greece

anti-Greek vandalists Future Perfect at Sunrise Dbachmann cplakidas strong vandalism on gReek languege and hellenic . Εσυ δε βλέπεις τι γινεται εχουν αφαιρεσει ολες τις πηγες με το ετσι θελω στις γλωσσες και τη μουσικη της ελλαδας γυφτικη με το ζορι... κανε κατι κ συ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMEGAS1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation

You guys can either work with what I've done, or you we can escalate it yet again. At the dispute resolution noticeboard it was shown that your viewpoint was baseless against policy and you stopped talking. At this point you are just being highly disruptive. And if you're going to claim its "OR" almost all the text was already present. If you wish to make reasonable improvements, beyond throwing all the new text out go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For example this "When they spread they eventually replaced all other higher-learning institutions and became the preeminent institution for higher education everywhere." is completely OR. It implies there were higher learning institutions everywhere in places where there are universities now. But the ancient higher learning institutions of India for example were long gone by the time the first universities opened there. So to claim that the older institutions were "replaced" by unversities is nonsense, and OR. I don't see anything at the DRN in favor of including something like this. I also wouldn't edit war if I were you, and definitely not call others' edits vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND and WP:TE. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote the article as it currently stands "From the early modern period onwards, the university gradually spread from the medieval Latin west across the globe, eventually replacing all other higher-learning institutions and becoming the preeminent institution for higher education everywhere." - so all I did was change the words slightly so it fit the new text. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And lets not forget you are currently editing against policy as Occasi showed to you both in dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What policy? There is no consensus for your edits, and you are alone in pushing them. This is not how we do things here, rather, it is WP:TE. You are going to have to get consensus, it's that simple. so far I see no evidence of that. Athenean (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you take another read through the resolution noticeboard thread - specifically the last comment from Ocaasi which points out the policies that you are breaking. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you would do well to read through WP:GUIDES. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And I suggest you go through WP:CONSENSUS. Insistently trying to insert your changes against consensus is WP:TE. Athenean (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. I have guidelines (as well as the comments by User:Ocaasi) to backup my line of thinking, so I have a pretty strong consensus actually. You appear to have nothing beyond one sentence which you've pointed out is OR which I am more than happy to remove. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are completely alone, so no you definitely do not have any kind of consensus. Did you read through WP:CONSENSUS. By the way please don't hope that you can keep posting here until you have the last word and then claim I "stopped talking". You don't have any kind of consensus, period. The sooner you accept that, the better for everyone involved. I'm not going to repeat myself. Athenean (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not "alone" because Ocaasi agrees with my position, and you only have two people on your "side" as everyone else has got bored. Please read the dispute resolution thread. We can escalate it again, and discuss it at the mediation cabal if its really needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that its the strength of the arguments that count. If I have a guideline backing up my position and you have nothing then I clearly have consensus with the sorts of numbers we are talking about here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual honesty

I've already expressed my opinion on WP:RSN on that issue. There are certain parameters on wiki about what should be called RS. None of that was followed by you and the other user. I am not repeating the same arguments that I've already expressed there. However you state in your comment to my talk page that "Itsmejudith was pretty clear: Gjergji, however "reliable", should not be used for references to the Illyrians". Too bad for you guys "deciding" on RS of A.Gjergji that neither Wilkes (here) nor Stipcevic (here) which are both leading experts on Illyrians, share the same opinion with you and Itsmjudith. Since the experts on Illyrians have no problem of using A. Gjergji on their books, I don't see your and user:Itsmejudith point on that issue. Furthermore since you are familiar with Wilkes work, you should have known that he has used this specific author in his book on Illyrians. Even if you don't remember that fact, a little check just like this Illyrians + A.gjergji on google books would have brought that issue up. None of you did it.

Summarizing:

1. That 30 min action without notifying nobody related on that topic, is not an intellectual honesty.
2. Hiding facts that you are aware off, is not an intellectual honesty.
3. Making false claims on WP:RSN verdicts (as far as I see there is still a debate there), is not an intellectual honesty.
4. By going to WP:RSN to discuss an issue and to make (biased) assumptions and speculations, but not doing a simple action as just googling the author and what other scholars think of him, is not an intellectual honesty.
5. Instantly rv a version although user:Alexikoua had no complaints about my edit, shows your edit war mentality and accusing me of that is not an intellectual honesty.

In the light of the above arguments, I would like to have no moral lessons (and false acusations) by your side. Aigest (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Troll Cplakidas

Καλησπερα! Αν και ειναι εξω απ τις αρμοδιοτητες σου, μπορεις σε παρακαλω να κανεις εναν ελεγχο στον χρηστη Cplakidas (talk · contribs); Εχω την εντυπωση πως ειναι γνωστο "troll" , σλαβικης - οθομανικης καταγωγης, που εχει την γνωστη επιμονη να απασχολει τα Ελληνικα αρθρα μετατρεποντας τα σε σλαβικα, προσποιουμενος (δηθεν) τον Ελληνα. - Κακη συνταξη (Σβησιμο και ξαναγραψιμο της ιδιας προτασης με λαθη) Χειριστα Αγγλικα χωρις επισημανση (τουλαχιστον εγω τα μιλαω του ποδαριου, λογω βαρεμαρας με επισημανση!), τρανταχτα στοιχεια που προδιδουν το "troll". Κανε εναν ελεγχο σε παρακαλω και ισως ειδοποιησω αργοτερα και ανωτερα στελεχη της βικι. - Σ'ευχαριστω! -BouzoukiGr (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Τρομάρα μου οι αληθινοί Έλληνες™ με πήραν χαμπάρι! Ευτυχώς δεν ανακάλυψαν ακόμα ότι πέρα από σλαβική-οθωμανική καταγωγή έχω επίσης αλβανική, γερμανική, αζτεκική, περσική και κινέζικη, ή ότι με πληρώνουν οι Ελοχίμ και η ΜΟΣΑΝΤ για να καταστρέψω τον ελληνισμό μαζί με το Γιωργάκη. Ε ρε παπαριές που έχουμε να δούμε ακόμα εδώ πέρα... Constantine ✍ 16:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Α, καλα καταλαβα! Ειναι οι γνωστες Ελληνικες μειονοτητες που το ενδιαφερον τους το επικεντρωνουν στα ελαχιστα αρθρα των σλαβων προσπαθωντας να κανουν συλλογες πηγων για την τεκμηριωση τους! τις περισσοτερες φορες ατεκμηριωτες απο την βικιπαιδεια (εφοσον δεν γινονται δεκτες απτην πλειοψηφια) οπως εκανε και επι του Θωμα τον σλαβου παλιοτερα - αρθρο (Thomas the Slav). Μια προσεχτικη παρατηρηση στην ip-διευθυνση, δειχνει του λογου το αληθες! Μυριζει μειονοτητα... --BouzoukiGr (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)