Jump to content

User talk:Khirurg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YUGO (talk | contribs) at 12:55, 7 July 2012 (→‎Reported). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Barnstar

The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
For bringing the article of the most "important" personality of Greek history to GA status, and for all your amazing contributions to Greece-related articles. Ola! Yannismarou (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It means a lot coming from you! I'll do my best to continue, as much as the real world allows me. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your efforts!

Your support would be welcome to help improve the Hellenism page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism Editorinfo (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old sock back to wiki

It seems an old sock is back here, after spending some months in creating ultranationlistic material on the web [[1]][[2]]. Guess who adds again 19th century museum stuff as references and "understands" archaich Greek by using it for pov pusing?Alexikoua (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, his first edit is four days after Guildenrich's last sock was blocked. I'm going to start an SPI. Athenean (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. Whenaxis about | talk 02:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. If you are still interested in the case, it's still open here. So, when you are available feel free to take a look and leave a message. If not, please notify me on my talk page of your absteinance from the case. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of World Heritage Sites in Greece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aigai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilization

Seems that the creation of 'P. of Albania' coincided with the creation of single purpose accounts and the attempt to mobilize all users of the same national background.Alexikoua (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thessaloniki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnese photos

I am not here to either trick anyone or play it "clever". So please spare the "you wouldnt think i would notice it". I really cant understand your obsession not putting those pics in this article. I didnt erase any pics, I just put some pics, that show a part of Peloponnese. You might say that this is not representative of Peloponnese, but either the medow below is. But thats not the point. I dont think that here is a rule that we must ONLY put REPRESENTATIVE pics in an article. Thanks. Nochoje (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are in fact supposed to put ONLY representative pics in an article. Why? Because wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not facebook or flicker. It's explained in WP:MOSIM if you can be bothered to read it. I don't know what you see in those pictures. They are ugly, boring, and could be anywhere in the world. As for "obsession", I can't believe that you actually waited all these MONTHS and re-added them. Talk about obsession. Very disappointing. Athenean (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has failed to understand why he got blocked last time. I will prepare a few reports if he chooses to continue in this long-term disruption. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough. I read WP:MOSIM and well i guess you are right. You live and learn, since I am quite new in Wikipedia. But again, I didnt wait months to put photos in the article, I mean I've got other things to do besides that... :) Anyway I shall not put those pics again in this article.Nochoje (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. It's fine. Please disregard my recent message on your talk. I hadn't seen your reply here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I see your point, and I agree. But the thing is that I do not see the point in this edit. Anyway. What do you think about this edit? --Seksen (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Athenean (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Byzantine Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simeon I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Hi! If you have a citation, which you intend to repeat, let's say for instance <ref>{{harvnb|Browning|1992|p=101}}.</ref>, then it is better to use the "ref name" format, namely in its first instance you write <ref name="B101">{{harvnb|Browning|1992|p=101}}.</ref>, and then you just repeat <ref name="B101" />. In this way, you avoid the reappearance of exactly the same citation as being a different one (while it's not really a different one). See how I formated your recent citation in the article (in accord with its stable version), and also check [3] and [4]. And also, since you are rewriting the particular section, if you have any sources to replace "Norwich 1998", please do it, because it has to go (it provides no page) or, at least, to be backed with a proper citation.

Is this your first active experience with FAR? How do you find it?! I return to FAR after some years, and, as far as I am concerned, I feel again some of the old time "excitement"! Καλό ΣΚ!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geia sou Gianni, yes, this is my first experience with FAR. It is an immense amount of work, because the article is so large. There is simply no way I could do it all myself. Quick question: Let's say I have three consecutive sentences sourced to the same source. Should I simply add a citation at the end of the last one to avoid clutter? Or should I add a citation at the end of all 3, otherwise people might assume the first two are uncited. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no "correct" answer. I personally prefer the second approach. I want every paragraph to be properly cited, but, if three sentences in a row have exactly the same citation, I'd rather put it at the end of the third sentence. However, I see that there is often an "overexcitement" in Wikipedia with citations, and I am not sure that everybody agrees with me. For me, it's just simple logic, but ... --Yannismarou (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. After all, any user that actually checks the citation will see that the whole paragraph is cited to that citation. Besides, if anyone mentions it on the FAR, i will just explain my approach. I will proceed with that approach then. Athenean (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Developed Country again!

Hi Athenean,

You might want to see the above article. There is a user that keeps reverting the Newsweeks' Quality Index. It strongly resembles banned user that did the same in the past if you recall.Thanks.Nochoje (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported him, should be blocked soon. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section demographics ( aritcle Albania)

I see you changed the sentence back and gave the reason that the source says "most". In this case do you mind putting the quote on the sentence since without it is misleading i.e. the source you provide says most which hardly means that is true as it one quote saying most. Also there are two sources for those sentences please indicate which one. See also the talk page where one of the sources is challenged. Please do not respond driven by nationalistic views and understand my request for the quote since you say you cite a whole sentence and if that is the case those are necessary and in the message you put most in quote so i am sure you understand. However the paragraph is hardly encyclopedic since is understood most when it comes from one book saying most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purusbonum (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Byzantine Empire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Great Schism and Rus' (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire (again!)

Hi! When you add new sources, as I think you did in citations 89-94, do not add these new sources in the citations section but in the "Secondary Sources" of the References section. Per the standard of this article and Harvard Ref system (which is used consistently throughout the article), in the citations we only put author-year-page. Otherwise, first we are inconsistent and secondly we break the uniform use and utility of Harvard Ref. in the article. As regards your source in citation 94, take into consideration that I have already used Cameron throughout the article but from the Greek edition (a kind present to me by the translator of the book himself and former Wikipedian, Giorgos Tzimas). I think it's best to stick to one edition of the same book. I'll thus find the respective page of the Greek edition and I'll fix the citation.

Finally, take note of the two notifications above (6th and 16th March) brought to you by the bot as regards disambiguations. Try to avoid linking to disambiguation pages, and, whenever you find such pages in the article, please try to fix them. In the sections I rewrite and source, I check separately each wikilink to see if there are disamb. problems. It may seem trivia, but, to the contrary, complete avoidance of disambiguation pages (as well as consistent following of MoS rules) is one of the criteria for FA status. Have a nice weekend! Best,--Yannismarou (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's what that bot wanted. As soon as I saw it was from a bot, I ignored it. Anyway, I'll keep that in mind in the future. I'll try to finish sourcing the Komnenian section sometime this week, time permitting. Athenean (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athenean, as I told you above I have used throughout the article the Greek edition of "the Byzantines", since it was easier for me to access it (I have it in my hands as a gift from Giorgos), and I did not have to google. So, if it is only 2 citations that you used the English version, I'll search the respective pages of the Greek edition (as I already told you above) and I'll fix them. I hope I'll be able to work on the article tomorrow or after tomorrow. Best, --Yannismarou (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yanni, currently, there is only one citation to the English version, in the "Apex" section. So that should be easy to fix. But I was planning to use the English version to source the "Komnenian" section, since that version is fully viewable online. This may then become a problem. Since the English version is fully available online, but to my knowledge the Greek one isn't, I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to do it the other way around, i.e. replace the Greek version with the English version. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names

I didn't remove the Turkish name from the Svilengrad article and the section on the origins of Svilengrad covers the etymology of the Turkish name, so there isn't really a need to have it in the lead. Also, there isn't really any evidence that the Turkish name of Svilengrad actually meets the criteria for being included in the lead (10% use in English literature or a former significant Turkish population). You should be familiar with the criteria, as you've applied them creatively yourself. AngBent, on the other hand, has been trying to remove the name from the Ellinochori article altogether (and he's been doing it elsewhere as well).

Also, don't threaten me. With your long and rich history of nationalist POV pushing on Wikipedia, you're not exactly in a position to lecture others on not being neutral. Kostja (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, don't make things up. I didn't say you removed the Turkish name from the article on Svilengrad altogether, just that you removed it from the lede on the grounds that it is already included in the History section. However, in Ellinochori, even though the Bulgarian name is already included in the History section, and its etymology explained, just as in Svilengrad, you edit-warred to keep it in the lede. It's hypocrisy, there's no talking your way out of it. Now, unlike you, I don't give a hoot whether the Bulgarian name is included in the lede or not, but I just can't stand hypocrisy.
By the way, I didn't threaten you, nor did I lecture you "on not being neutral", or any such thing. I just said that if you continue edit-warring, I will report you. Which is just a simple fact, as that the sun will rise tomorrow. And considering your rich history of nationalist POV-pushing, as well as the sheer number of reverts, it won't be pretty. On the other hand I am glad to see the message seems to have gotten through. Have a nice day. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're distorting my actions. I was reinserting the name along with the history section AngBent was removing. This is completely different from the Svilengrad case.
You know very well that I wasn't edit warring, you have enough experience with that. And yes, it wouldn't be pretty considering not only your edit warring history which is considerably longer and significant than mine (I, for example, have not had the "honour" of appearing on the ARBMAC page) but also your entirely one sided intervention. Why didn't you warn AngBent for repeatedly removing a relevant name from the article altogether? As for your message, it does seem to have some effect, as the article hasn't been reverted - yet. Kostja (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the Bulgarian name needs to go into the lede of Ellinochori, while on the other hand the Turkish name of Svilengrad can't be in the lede. It is the same exact situation on both articles. And yes, you were edit-warring, if slow-revert warring, and you know that very well. Be defiant all you want, I don't really care. But if you continue like this, you will get the "honor" of appearing on WP:ARBMAC, trust me on that. Unlike you, AngBent doesn't appear to be active lately, nor is he as experienced, and unlike you, I have managed to keep my nose clean lately. So yes, it's definitely in your interest to not push this. Athenean (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Hello Athenean. I've read your recent comments on the Byzantine Empire discussion page and wanted to let you know that the sentence you previously added to the lead of the entry was probably inspired by the content in the Byzantine Greeks entry (specifically in the "Revival of Hellenism" section). Hope this helps to clarify things (it's the least I could do to show my appreciation for your excellent contributions to the quality management inspection process, regardless of the mistakes that all of us, including myself, can make from time to time). Take care. :-) No. 108 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's it. Sourced to Ahrweiler, wonderful, thanks inspector. By the way, I wanted to ask you, do you know of any good sources on the Macedonian Struggle, the article seems to suffer from a lack of them. Athenean (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I would definitely need time to look into the matter Athenean. But I can tell you right now that the entry in question desperately needs an inspector's touch. No. 108 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I could be mistaken, but isn't Constantine an expert on this particular period of Grecian history? No. 108 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per your request, I've found a number of (hopefully reliable) sources which may be of use to you:
Best of luck in all of your endeavors. Take care. :-) No. 108 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. Athenean (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Khirurg. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (ancient kingdom article) revert

Athenean I left a post on the Talk page of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) putting forth the reasons for my edits. Can you please examine it and respond. I will also add the first quotation mark into the Herodotus quote.

Nath9091 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues

With his sick time pattern and the usual childish pov, he again revealed his identity.Alexikoua (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Agkistro

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mikis

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Mikis Theodorakis". Thank you. --Soosim (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content, not contributor

This comment is not acceptable per WP:CIVIL. If you want to discuss the content, please do so, but stop commenting on E4024's alleged motivations. And bringing Turkey into the issue had absolutely no bearing. Finally, WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean we ignore all recent news; furthermore, it's not even policy. Yes, we need to apply WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV), but the results of national elections hardly count as unimportant. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my bad. But I stand by my point regarding WP:RECENTISM, and I also think it is WP:UNDUE. After all, there are new elections scheduled to be held less than a month from now. By the way, did you see his reply, the bit about "projection"? Athenean (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be seen in the context of E4024's recent commentary such as The Republic of Cyprus Joined the Eurozone, about four years before Greece destroyed it. Such display of anti-Greece POV is naturally going to make a few people wonder about his real intentions. There was a lot of WP:BAIT and WP:BATTLE in that edit summary of E4024 and there are more examples. Such verbal violence in edit summaries is an abuse of the edit-summary system and makes the intended targets to sometimes respond in a suboptimal manner. Perhaps Athenean should not have taken the bait but his questioning of E4024's motives was at least based on solid empirical evidence. Ironically, if as E4023 asserts, Greece has destroyed the eurozone, this solves the problem for Turkey and protects its national honour; you cannot join something that does not exist. And thanks to Greece, nobody can reject your EU application if they have been disbanded, thus giving you precious plausible deniability. Turkey can always assert, after the fact, that she did not want to join such a house of cards in the first place. National Honour saved, mission impossible accomplished. And all thanks to Greece. Who would have imagined. Having said that, this conflict definitely needs to decompress. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on both comments (regarding E4024's behavior; as behavior, no comment on the political issues)--I know how hard it is to try to act civilly in the face of repeated bad behavior. I wonder if E4024 might be amenable to taking a voluntary break from the topic area just so that things cool off a bit. I'll ask xyr. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Qwyrxian. And of course you are completely excused from commenting on my attempt at political humour. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to occupy your talk page Athenean, but as I have been referred to, here, I need to make a clarification for Dr.K.:

When I wrote the above quoted Edit Summary at the Cyprus article I had already written that the "Republic of Cyprus" entered the Eurozone, (not Cyprus), for two or three times and my edit had been reverted every time. In one of those futile previous tries I even added a reference from an "Embassy of the Republic of Cyprus" official source about the entry of the "Republic of Cyprus" in the Eurozone, without being able to prevent another revert. I even set the embedded "Eurozone" link in the article myself. Without any detriment to anyone's position on the Cyprus dispute, it is sunshine clear that the "Republic of Cyprus" entered the Eurozone and not the island. (If we accepted otherwise then we should possibly delete the Northern Cyprus article in WP.) All of us here know that the TRNC is not part of the Eurozone.

The interesting thing is that now the Cyprus article keeps my last edit on this issue. This means that I was right from the beginning but probably that Edit Summary of mine that Dr.K. quoted above helped people to see it...

Anyhow, I repeat: I am not an "aggressive Turkish nationalist". I am only Turkish, neither nationalist nor aggressive...

All the best,

P.S. As Dr.K. states in his/her own Talk Page, contributions should be taken for their content and the discussions about content should be made in the Talk Pages of the Articles and as I believe in the same I have left some "food for thought" here and there. I hope I receive some feedback at the relevant Article Talk Pages. In the meantime I will devote myself to other activities, if not provoked. Hope this is my last visit here or to any other user's Talk Page. --E4024 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's hope for the best. Thank you for your comments. The message at the top of my talk regarding article content discussions is not set in stone, so please feel free to visit my talkpage at any time if I can be of any assistance. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hi Athenean, keep a close eye on Template:Greek Orthodox Christianity. There's a user not happy with the Albanian entry. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest, I am Orthodox myself but not an expert on the Greek Orthodox church. Is its removal correct? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I left an explanation in the template talkpage. Basically, the "Greek" is meant in a cultural sense. Any church that conducts mass in Greek can be considered part of Greek Orthodox christianity. Autocephaly has nothing to do with it. The Orthodox Church in America is 100% autocephalous, but because it conducts mass in Greek as well as English, no one in their right mind would remove it from the template. Other churches, such as the Bulgarian and Serbian ones, don't conduct any masses in Greek, therefore no one in their right mind would include them in the template. But most importantly, the article Greek Orthodox Church mentions the Albanian church, and it sources it to 3-4 different sources, so placement in the template is warranted on those grounds alone, let alone the rest. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Athenean (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jup Kastrati

Jup Kastrati (1924-2002) is a reknowned philologist, basically the founder of the Luigj Gurakuqi University of Shkoder, or one of the main figures of academic research in philological studies in that city. Mesfushor (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, what kind of stuff has he published? Maybe he can tell us how the Albanian "Dy"+"rrahe" somehow became the "Durres" via a Slavic intermediary? Because toponyms don't generally go from Albanian --> Slavic --> back to Albanian. Athenean (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a question of interpreting through Illyrian->Slavic->Albanian. I'm not a scholar though, so we have to rely on him and others. He has notably published the History of Albanology (1497-1997) in three volumes. Mesfushor (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Dy" and "rrahe" are Albanian, not Illyrian, as far as I can tell. We don't know what the Illyrian words for "two and "ridge" were in Illyrian. Which seems to imply that modern Albanian was spoken in antiquity. Weird. Athenean (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a specialist, and my knowledge in linguistics is limited. In general lack of specialized studies and limited writings (i.e. evidence) in Illyrian for several centuries make the study difficult, however toponymy and Classical Greece authors are mainly the sources for certain deductions. It'd be good to have this book available to read more about Illyrian-Albanian languages continuity, but I haven't read it. Kastrati and Demiraj are reliable sources since their scholarship is proven, whereas I wouldn't bring to Wikipedia amateur historians such as Spiro Konda, Robert d'Angely, or Mathieu Aref, whose contributions have historically not been endorsed by the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Mesfushor (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of mathematics

I don't understand the bold text and italic text code you added here [5]- I've removed it and fixed the image, as you removed a "]" unintentionally. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, no idea how that happened. Thanks for taking care of it. Athenean (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've done worse! Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Hi. Please see talk here [6] re recent activity you might have been involved in Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia

Your edit is hardly constructive and since you have not provided sources to challenge my view, your edit seems highly tendentious to say the least. I don't see why you, of all people with all your experience on here, would delete sourced material clearly reflecting a non-partisan view. Ottomanist (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Καλησπέρα Αθηναίε

Καλησπέρα,

θα ήθελα τη βοήθεια σου σε ένα θέμα. Στο άρθρο Alexander the Great στη σελίδα της συζήτησης γίνεται προσπάθεια να γραφεί το όνομα του Μέγα Αλέξανδρου στη γλώσσα του FYROM δίπλα απο την ελληινική, υποστηρίζοντας ότι ήταν βασιλεύς του αρχαίου Μακεδονικού βασιλείου που σήμερα είναι, όπως υποστηρίζει, τα Σκόπια. Συγκεκριμένα αναφέρει

i would like to edit where Alexander the Great was the king of Macedon now know as Macedonia and a macedonian translation of his name Bacondevil8 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Μην αφήσεις κάτι τέτοιο να συμβεί. Υποστήριξε ότι το όνομα γράφετε στα ελληνικά διότι αυτή ήταν η αυθεντική μορφή του ονόματος του, στα ελληνικά. Το πώς το αναφέρει ο κάθε λαός στη γλώσσα του δεν είναι σημαντικό για το άρθρο.

Ευχαριστώ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Br shadow (talk • contribs) 10:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol of Corfu

Thanks for the hand dealing with minor c-e issues.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding removing sourced material. The thread is User: Athenean.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Ottomanist (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


amfisvititai h Ellinikh parousia sthn kroatia prin to 4 aiona p.x. sthn germaniki wiki

7ia cou a8inaen, 8a h8ela na 6is ti ginetai sto 7ermaniko wiki, sto ap8ro k i6ika sth shzhtish. prospa8o e6o k mhnes na beltioso to ar8ro (MiY) dustixos me mplokaroun kai mpoikotapoun, amfisbitite kai agnoite i ellinikh parousia sthn kroatia, opos ke olokliri h buzantini epoxh pou opos xerume htan sxedon xilia xrwnia. boi8a s parakalo sto oste ou pseftes ths istorias na ma8oun thn pragmatikothta.--YUGO (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khirurg&oldid=501094266"