(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 614:
Line 614:
Στα ελληνικά ο Αρβανίτης (ο αλβανόφωνος κάτοικος της Ελλάδας) διακρίνεται από τον Αλβανό (κυρίως τον κατοικο της Αλβανίας). Η διάκριση αυτή όμως δεν είναι μόνο ελληνική. Και στα επίσημα αλβανικά διακρίνεται ο Arbëresh (δηλαδή ο αλβανόφωνος της Νότιας Ιταλίας, της Ελλάδας ή της Δαλματίας που κατάγεται από Αλβανούς που μετανάστευσαν κατά τον Μεσαίωνα) από τον Shqiptar (δηλαδή τον Αλβανό της Αλβανίας και του Κοσσυφοπεδίου). Διακρίνεται και η arbërishte (η γλώσσα των αλβανόφωνων κατοίκων της Νότιας Ιταλίας και της Ελλάδας) από τη shqipe (δηλαδή την αλβανική γλώσσα της Αλβανίας και του Κοσσυφοπεδίου).[[User:Periptero|Periptero]] ([[User talk:Periptero|talk]]) 01:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Στα ελληνικά ο Αρβανίτης (ο αλβανόφωνος κάτοικος της Ελλάδας) διακρίνεται από τον Αλβανό (κυρίως τον κατοικο της Αλβανίας). Η διάκριση αυτή όμως δεν είναι μόνο ελληνική. Και στα επίσημα αλβανικά διακρίνεται ο Arbëresh (δηλαδή ο αλβανόφωνος της Νότιας Ιταλίας, της Ελλάδας ή της Δαλματίας που κατάγεται από Αλβανούς που μετανάστευσαν κατά τον Μεσαίωνα) από τον Shqiptar (δηλαδή τον Αλβανό της Αλβανίας και του Κοσσυφοπεδίου). Διακρίνεται και η arbërishte (η γλώσσα των αλβανόφωνων κατοίκων της Νότιας Ιταλίας και της Ελλάδας) από τη shqipe (δηλαδή την αλβανική γλώσσα της Αλβανίας και του Κοσσυφοπεδίου).[[User:Periptero|Periptero]] ([[User talk:Periptero|talk]]) 01:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
== AE, again ==
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=387924201#Result_concerning_Athenean this AE thread], you are admonished for treating Wikipedia as a battleground and warned that repeated infractions may lead to a topic ban. Also, while you are not banned from interacting with ZjarriRrethues right now, please be reminded that grave-dancing, baiting and other disruptive activity will not be tolerated and will lead to a two-sided interaction ban. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 14:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Your summary at the RfC was brilliant indeed.I share your concern for Jagged´s agenda.Do you think he will change? all the best--Knight1993 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I'm glad you think so, because it took me almost five hours to write that and I almost gave up a couple of times. I think the RfC/U was very much a success, I think that either way the problem had been resolved. Nice working with you and see you around. Athenean (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned your name in a proposal I made at WP:AE, in the thread about Kedadi [1]. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who can't stand this StanStun clown. Always good to get some encouragement from a sympatrioti...will definitely wait for StanStun to get banned. Dousis (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting Article
Hello. I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting article you might be willing to contribute to:
You may make no more than one revert per rolling 24-hour period on these articles
If you do make a revert on such an article, you must post an explanation of why you have made the revert, to be at least 50 words and in English, to the talk page of the article, within 30 minutes of posting.
"Balkans-related" is to be construed widely. If you are not certain whether a certain article is Balkans-related, assume that it is.
This restriction applies until the end of June. You may appeal the restriction to me, to WP:ANI, or to the Arbitration Committee. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Khirurg. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You are invited to participate in this board, which I just created. Please feel free to bring there your concerns. Cheers! --Sulmues Let's talk 01:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for being the first one to endorse and support the board. By the way this reaction was harsh but you know what? I know how you feel. However, now I really have to do a quick translation of what I said in the Albanian board [2], because you deserve it.
It has been very difficult for me to edit the Albanian articles in the last three months. I would have wanted that those who know English contribute in the English project with their translations, because we can't take too much info from the Albanain project, furthermore in some cases the English project is better than the Albanian one. Our problem are the sources which are almost not even used in the Albanian Wikipedia. In general the antiquity is apanage of the Greeks and it is very difficult to communicate with them. The Thesprotians, the Molossians the Chaonians are characterized as Greeks, Pyrrus of Epirus is represented as Greek, and so does The Great Alexander. Athenean, Alexikoua and Megistias, the most active Greek contributors and the most antialbanians are masters of the revert. Athenean and Alexikoua have reported me 100 times and I have often been blocked, but I also have had them blocked sometimes. Have fun in reading here (I invite you to read my defense, which although it is long, shows you what happens), and here. You can contact me if you want to give your contributions in the English Wikipedia.
If this is meatpuppetry, feel free to report me. I don't think it is: it is an invitation to Albanians to contribute in translations of the articles with their Albanian sources. I say above that you, Megistias, and Alexikoua are anti-Albanians. However I have NEVER contacted someone off-wiki and I am certainly not making any recruitments: I am just responding to the concern that was raised in the Albanian wikipedia about how the Albanian articles were being covered in the English project. Albanian newbies come to contribute because when they read Wikipedia in English, they know that the articles are edited by non-Albanians and when they start improving them, they get a kick in the derriere because they are reported by you. They are newbies and there will always be newbies around. They ain't socks. And you should be nicer to them. Bye now and come to the board to contribute. --Sulmues Let's talk 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banned
Under my authority as specified at WP:ARBMAC, you are banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for a period of six months. This ban was placed due to your violation of an existing restriction, which was placed upon you by Stifle just a few days ago. This edit is the one which violated the restriction. If you have any questions about this ban or wish to appeal, contact me on my Talk page. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above ban has been commuted due to a successful appeal. You are now banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for two weeks. You are also restricted to one revert per 24-hour period for four months. These restrictions are to run concurrently. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for reconsidering. I will not disappoint. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can you help?
User:Wikiwatcher1 has been trolling around the Judaism page; see this bit of talk for a sample. He insists on using dictionary definitions over sources by Jewish scholars. I suspect he has a general agenda reflected in his POV pushing in other articles. I see you have had some experience dealing with him. WP:DE points out that a disruptive editor often evades detection because the disruptive edits are spread out among different articles. I think there may be just such a pattern here. Would you mind watching the Judaism page and see how he has been altering a consensus-version text without any consideration to points made by editors who have been working on the article for years? If you see any shenanigans you are familiar with, your experienced comment would help. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo
Suppose you are on a wiki break. I see these ips and spi accounts (Kushtrim&Stupidus Maximus) make a real concert these days, According Stupidus, I have real doubts if one of these ips are his.Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the IP that reverted you at Berat. It's almost certainly him. Don't worry, he's well on his way out. Athenean (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!!
Thanks so much for the Barnstar, my friend! I´m sorry I didn´t write to you before but I´ve just noticed it. I´ve had some issues in real life to solve so I didn´t have enough time to work in Wikipedia. Fortunately, I´m back now. Thanks again! --Knight1993 (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, good to have you back! Athenean (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pas sto "my preferences" pano pano, kai sto user preferences kaneis tick to koutaki "enable e-mail from other users". Kai sbhse to mhnyma mou mwlis to kaneis, etsi gia na mhn fainetai tpt. Athenean (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bale opoio mail 8eleis. Egw exw ftiaksei ena mono gia th wiki, athenean.wiki@gmail.com. Steile mou mail gia oti 8eleis, einai 100% asfales. Athenean (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are right, this cooperation board has became completely worthless, especially after this 'hit&run mission' performed by Balkanian's Word, with Sulmues pretending that everything is ok and demanding one-sided AGF [[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's how it works: Balkanian or Zjarri ram through some changes without consulting anyone, and then Sulmues lectures us about AGF. It's the old bad-cop good-cop (or not-so-good cop) routine. Boring. Athenean (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that you are not an administrator. Please do not talk to other users in such a way as to imply that you are. Reminding other users of arbcom decisions is one thing, but passing yourself off as an admin is something else. Thank you. DS (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most ludicrous accusation that I've ever heard. That certainly wasn't my intention and I don't know why you would say that. I'm trying to "pass myself off as an admin"? Really? Where? I just cut-and-pasted the Balkans warning template and displayed it on his talkpage, which anyone can do, and which he richly deserves. And could you for once try and be a little impartial and look at how disruptive this user has been? He is the one who is being disruptive here, not me, yet here you are. Let me guess, someone (no prizes for guessing who) contacted you on IRC? Athenean (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked around and it seems that only admins can use that warning not normal users.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 07:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be hapy to stay away from Alexikua's page. No problem. But pretending yourself as an admin, is very serious. You should stop doing this. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept that you had no ill intention and that this was accidental on your part. Just be a little more careful with your choice of words from now on, okay? DS (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Btw, I'm pretty sure anyone can issue the Balkan warning template, not just admins. Athenean (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ath.! Is it possible to make a c-e check on this? I've expanded this article recently, I believe it's one of the most significant of modern Greek history.Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Athenean, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I mentioned on the Turkey edit page that Ozguroot is a sockpuppet--now he's asking me to prove it. I'm not quite sure how, can you give me a hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dousis (talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dousis. The sockpuppet I was referring to is User:Iceman rides your tail. It's him, without a doubt. I'm not too familiar with Ozguroot, but it seems he is a sockpuppet of someone else (User:Izmir lee). I'm kinda busy at the moment both in wiki and in real life, but I will look into it as soon as I can. Best, Athenean (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that some major Albanian contributors, aren't really interested to upgrade this project, but just trying to use wikipedia as a potential medium of propaganda. Characteristically the two main subbranches of the Albanian people (Ghecks&Tosks but also Labs) are just redirections..., on the other hand it's really rediculus that they are creating wp:battle in every occasion in this project (multiple & overextented templates and articles about irredetist issues, unconfirmed war crimes etc). Suppose wikipedia has a completely diferrent meaning according to this editors.Alexikoua (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibreak
When the AfD of Hormova is over I'll be taking a (long) wikibreak from Balkans-articles. Until then I'll try to have as little as possible interaction with you, so try doing the same. I joined wikipedia to help the project and not argue with users who are here to promote their truth and because of that I decided to limit my edits in Balkans articles as much as possible. A reply to this message won't be necessary and in fact you're welcome to delete it after reading it.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hormova
You can remove the ultra-gore, sure. Leave in the parts about foreign response, and the claimed numbers of deaths. DS (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kodra&Guildenrich
I've added some (more) additional evidence in his spi. It seems that with this afd he declared that he is Guildenrich...Alexikoua (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this S.M. saga is finally over. I thought that this guy would finally self declare as reincarnation of Guildenrich, while on the same time denying any relation with him.05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record, this particular user was not the reincarnation of Stupidus Maximus. It was one of our regular vandals trying to stir up more trouble. (I'd name him, but that would just gratify his infantile ego.) DS (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you have any objection about my proposal in Fustanella.Alexikoua (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jagged 85
Hi. I am a specialist in the history of logic, particularly the medieval period. I wrote most of History of logic (not the section on modern logic). I have been concerned for some time about misrepresentation of Islamic achievements in the area of philosophy and logic (the Islamic philosophers made some great innovations, by the way, but Jagged's work entirely misrepresents them). Then I noticed the recent RfC and was shocked by the scale of what he (or she) has done. The errors in the logic and philosophy articles are still there. What is to be done? I wrote about the problem here [6] in my blog, which has a wide academic readership. Note particularly the point about the dissemination of inaccurate information all across the web. 86.184.132.41 (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the damage he has done is immense, and it extends far beyond the history of science. Democracy, Human rights, Women's rights, you name it, there isn't a single article or section involving the history of an idea that he hasn't contaminated with his POV. I am very grateful to you for publicizing the situation on your blog, and you hit on all the main points. The good news is that the RfC was successful: He has gone on an indefinite wiki-break as a result, and knows full well that should he return and resume his past behavior, he will be banned in short order. So the damage is done, but it has at least been contained, and now the cleanup begins. There are a number of editors who are working on cleaning up after him, each one within his own specialty. I am delighted to hear you specialize in logic and the history of logic, as these articles definitely need some cleanup, and they are far from my specialty so I cannot do it myself. The extent of the damage is such that it is too much for one person to undo, but if a number of editors do their part within their specialty, then we can roll back a lot of it. So feel free to edit those articles, and do not worry about Jagged, his days of wreaking havoc on this encyclopedia are over, one way or another. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I was banned last year for my continued and outspoken criticism of bullies in the administration so I cannot help. (I am Peter Damian - I created many articles on logic and philosophy). A number of editors have approached me privately by email with the idea of presenting a petition to Arbcom. If you or any others are interested in joining, you can contact me at my user page on Commons [7]. I am glad to hear, anyway, that the days of Jagged 85 are over. Peter 86.184.214.37 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't aware of the exact circumstances, Athenean, here is the actual ban discussion: community banned for attacking another editor on Wikipedia with a sockpuppet while being blocked with his main account. Note that more recent socks include e.g. User:Think of the children, which was blocked even before it was known that it was a PD sock. Fram (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we were allowed a bit more discussion of those incidents, Fram? Instead of one side having all the say and another blocked? Fram is famous for having disrupted the History of logic FAC, preventing it reaching its conclusion. The article now remains vandalised by Jagged 85. Who is going to fix it? 86.185.60.167 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you start by telling lies, like you did in your second post here, it's hard to take you serious. Apart from that, I'm only "famous" for that FAC in the opinion of you and perhaps SandyGeorgia. No one else seems to have noticed it or remembered it. Fram (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the particulars of the dispute between you guys, although the sockpuppetry does seem pretty serious. What I do know, however, is that Logic and History of Logic are in a parlous state and need work. Athenean (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean, I'm afraid that the person behind Jagged_85 is actually still editing, albeit no longer with that account. It doesn't look like he is planning to clean his mess up. Like:
Can I leave this with you to touch base with the other users from the RfC/U to do the required follow-ups, and coordinate how this can be cleaned up? FWIW, there is a tool used by the copyright violation cleanup people, the Contribution surveyor, that might be helpful here to create a list of articles and diffs that need to be looked at (like e.g. this). You could ask one of the regulars there to create it for you. Amalthea 08:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, this is serious. Thank you very much for letting me know. I will get in touch with the other RfC/U participants and we'll look into it. Thanks again. Athenean (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for spotting this, Amalthea, and for blocking his (domestic, static) IP address.
So, as soon as the RfC/U was launched, he started editing from his IP address and, as soon as his IP address was blocked, he started edited again (so far only once) via his own account. Definitely an avoidance of scrutiny, as Amalthea noted.
I'll have a look at some of those contributions, but the ones I've checked so far show no sign of a desire to change his ways.
It sure looks like he's back; some old edits[8][9][10] from that IP look very much like Jagged. The fact that the IP has no edits in talk space is also typical of Jagged. I had been wondering what Jagged was doing instead of his agreed role in cleaning up his mess, and now I see. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC); edited 21:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on his talkpage. Let's see what he says. Athenean (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not again, this sucks. If the identity of the said user and the IPs can be confirmed, then Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Off the record and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Summary should be applied vigorously: Jagged 85 agrees to follow through his commitment to this process and he understands that, if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the form and timing of edits from the IP 93.97.55.135's, and particularly the timing of this recent edit of Jagged85's, raise strong suspicions that the latter has been using the former to avoid scrutiny of his edits. However, I would urge caution in jumping to the conclusion that this has been incontrovertibly established. There appears to me to be fairly strong indications that someone other than Jagged85 has been editing from that IP, and if that is the case then the Jagged-like edits from the IP may not have been made by Jagged himself but by someone else who shares some of his interests and holds similar views on many of the interests they have in common.
The IP address 93.97.55.135 is (currently, at least) static, so if more than one person has edited from it, the device to which it is associated could well belong to a household or organisation whose members share a similar range of beliefs and attitudes, and which provides several of those members with access to it. Without checkuser evidence that Jagged85's recent edit was made from the same user account on the device at the given IP address (assuming it's a multiuser system) as those recently made anonymously from that address—or, alternatively, an admission from Jagged85 himself that that is the case—I can't see that there are sufficient grounds for concluding that it is. Nevertheless, I do think there are sufficient grounds to warrant requesting a sock puppet investigation with checkuser evidence. I therefore suggest that such a request be lodged before any further action is taken. David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the evidence David has turned up, a sock puppet investigation is certainly called for. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I wrote him a note on his talkpage to give him an opportunity to come clean/explain himself, but seeing as to how he is pretending not to notice, an SPI is the next step. Coming soon. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is his work (and I have no doubt that it is), he has breached three or four of the agreements he made in the RfC/U and, in starting to edit from his IP as soon as the RfC/U was raised (while saying on his talk page: "I'm in the middle of an RFC now, so I don't think it's a good idea for me to be editing articles right now."), no further assumption of good faith could possibly be made in his favour.
I notice David has an SPI request drafted, so I'll not race to start one myself.
Ya Allah! Does this ever end?Jayzames (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now finished a the draft of a sockpuppet case. I will hold off lodging it for a few more hours for other editors to provide feedback, which I welcome on my talk page.
It seems that User:Zjarri. preffers underground irc activity for cu requests, no wonder he never shows up in wp:spi (apart from a funny report against Megistias, in which both ips were visible to common users). Since he was lately obsessive in reporting everything, I've asked him to bring evidence about what he claims. Else, I'll fill a wp:ani (this hate against newcommers is really tragic).Alexikoua (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I never directly asked for a CU but I contacted an admin and he considered my suspicions reasonable and the user was a sock. I am entitled to have any opinion and it seems that some admins too think the same. I made my comment and I stated that it may be a bit far-fetched but you I certainly wouldn't discard it and since the beginning I stated it is an assumption so it depends upon the other users' opinion whether they consider it just an assumption or truly reasonable. If Alexikoua thinks that me reporting users' who sock and just revert others as disruptive then the verdict is on the two bans of that user.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is all about off wiki, I really doubt that your intentions were innocent and in good faithin in irc. Your obsession to launch empty meatpuppetry accusations is really tragic (that's what we see in wiki).Alexikoua (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a sockpuppet, wasn't it? Therefore, every label is redundant because my report was 100% correct.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a result of a specific editor's intense biting activity of newcommers. Please don't hide essential parts of this case.
@Zjarri: Since I've opened a section in Athenean's talkpage it's obvious that disruption by third users isn't needed (if you really want to discuss something with me DONT delete my msgs in your talkpage but discuss them instead).Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I_Pakapshem
It seems that specific users like him have additional rights in this encyclopedia. Like the right to edit while blocked and then declaring that they are proud that they respected their restriction. I've created a subsection on your ani case, this is really tragic.Alexikoua (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello athenean some time ago i had made edits to the article arvanites that were reverted by user olahus for no reason..but some other ip which is apparently of a banned user ALSO edited it and it was protected so now i cant edit it..i mainly added some information on demography and streamlined some sections see here and the edits following it. since its good content and not contentious or disputable do you think you could add it back? i think olahus might have protested the removal of some old ethnographic maps he added to wikipedia but they are irrelevant in that article where the arvanitic areas are specifically mentioned in words..(what do maps of epirus have to do with it anyway?)87.202.63.171 (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh...BTW here is the final version of my edits here87.202.63.171 (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I remember. Your edits seemed pretty good and I agreed with them for the most part. I can add it back, but be aware that this is one of the hazards one faces when editing as an IP. Removals, even when eminently, are likely to be treated by people as vandalism. This is why you might want to think about getting a user name. It's the only way to get taken seriously around here (though it doesn't guarantee it). Athenean (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the tip but i really edit so rarely and on subjects few people know or care about...its mysterious why some people dont look at the content whether added or removed (both happened) and the reasoning behind that..it would still be nice if you could add it back on arvanites though thanks in any case..!87.202.61.15 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi again..! biris isnt akin to something like kollias (though he wasnt a historian and he has some less accepted views) just in case you were worried..his chapter about the demographics mentions all the old views (19th-20th century) mentioned in the article plus some more and a slipup of hahn's apparently..since its only a review of other sources its good to add back imo87.202.54.4 (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Καληνύχτα, hi! Would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, sorry my knowledge of Greek is really limited. I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in diverse languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again/σας ευχαριστώ, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking feedback on a possible future RfA bid (Richwales)
Hi. I'm considering a possible future "request for adminship" (RfA) bid. I've written up some draft Q&A material (see here), and if you would be willing to have a look at it, I'd be interested in any feedback you might want to provide. Since you and I have encountered one another while discussing edits to the Northern Cyprus page, I thought you might logically be someone who could offer insights to my Wikipedia style and behaviour that would be relevant to an adminship bid. I briefly mentioned the Northern Cyprus article in my Q&A, but if you think I should say more — or if there are other questions you think I ought to address — I would welcome your input. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
epirus
hi athenean this is something i also recommended to alex since its in greek..it has imo some relevant information to the 'debate' both about the definition(s) of epirus and about the population http://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/handle/10442/8080 take a look sometime also please think about leaving both 'greeks were' and 'albanians were' versions out if you read the relevant parts in the source i linked i think you will be convinced anyway87.202.33.34 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW to give you a headstart look at his rough map on page 374 (in reality there were also some small greekspeaking -eg parga, himare, narte...- and albanian speaking exceptions in the areas of contiguous speech as he writes) on the borders of greek and albanian speech (also religion and the vlach areas)..though it has to be said that ultimately the problem of speech concerns nationalism little since many albanianspeaking christians became part of the greek nation even in epirus but not the other way (for wellknown historical reasons..greek education, early emergence of greek nationalism, the division of albanian speakers in two religions, four 'denominations' etc)87.202.33.34 (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kastoria
Again, my apologies for the disruption at AE. Could you please my response here?--Sulmues Let's talk 22:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guildenrich
It seems he never stops to be disruptive even unlogged he creates the same mess [[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because I merely added a tag that I thought was appropriate. This [13] on the other hand, is utterly lame, because you actually edited only and only so as to make sure the WP:SQ tag is always first. Now that's what I call lame. What is it with some people and wikiproject tags anyway? Cheers, Athenean (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor
Not a regular user in Wikipedia, but astonished to see there is no one moderating the Moses page. Hadn't looked at the article for a month, and the original research content that was removed as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history was delete, not merge..... the user Wikiwatcher1 put back in! Does no one mod these pages? I tried to delete the said removed material but the Cluebot auto reverted (obviously when a clunk of material is removed the bot can go faulty)... a more established user who knows how to overcome the fault with the automatic bot can removed the previously removed content. I noted you have frequented the article, so i brought it to your attention. Thanks.AussieGreen&Gold (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to bypass AfD deleted, issue raised at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arvanites-self-identification
Of course a large number of Arvanites self-identify as Greeks but not all and there is no way to prove that every single Arvanite does self-identify as Greek.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 09:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want just to inform you that a very very weird pattern was performed by Sulmues on talk:Gjin Boua Shpata. Although he admitted that he found reasonable my edit on the Shpata family section after 6 days of absence 'someone' conveiced him (obviously off-wiki) to follow the extreme national line.Alexikoua (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Khirurg. You have new messages at Sulmues's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or
(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.
As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I will look into it a bit deeper, but on first glance, your post is somewhat unclear. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in some parts. More later. Athenean (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this comment. Other have also explained that my prose is unclear. Your writing is not unclear.
My problem isn't solely to do with my writing skills, but also to do with what I was trying to achieve. My ability to be helpful in this context is limited. Please give me some time to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nev1's step-by-step approach helped me to clarify my understanding of the nested problem set. The sentences are demonstrably constructive, helpful, and plain. The paragraphs illustrate effective writing. I would like to see this section's text re-positioned on the main page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Statement of the dispute/View by certifier Nev1. This will give you and others the opportunity to join me in endorsing the problem-solving approach and conclusions.
Significantly, you will want to read the response drafted by Teeninvestor. The reaction shows that Teeninvestor also construes these words as a constructive investment of time and thought. Hopefully, the structure of this diff can be the catalyst for a few more steps in a productive process.
I wonder if Nev1's reasoning needs to be highlighted as a kind of template for use in other difficult contexts? --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing
I discovered these words on the userpage of Kraftlos; and I was surprised that it made sense to me. Conventionally, this form of word play escapes my grasp. I don't know whether Kraftlos is the originator or whether it is copied from an unattributed source.
My guess is that this is a peculiarly American formulation which parodies the words of Yogi Berra? Berra is well known for his pithy comments and witticisms which are called "Yogiisms." Yogiisms very often take the form of either an apparently obvious tautology, or a paradoxicalcontradiction.
Teeninvestor has explained that he is an American, the son of emigrants who came to the United States when he was six years old. Arguably, Teeninvestor will find value in this semi-Yogiism. Perhaps the point will be immediately accessible in ways that a carefully-composed, logical exposition fails to achieve? Who can say? In this RfC context, I interpret the phrase to mean that
the main thing
is to keep the main thing
the main thing
the primarly objective of a RfC
is to maintain a clear focus
on the purpose of the exercise
.
.
In other words, it is important to avert a possibility that the RfC may become side-tracked or distracted by tangential issues. I hoped that this phrase would resonate in some way for Teeninvestor. More broadly, I hoped that it would contribute to prospects of a constructive outcome.
Does this help explain what I meant and what I intended? If not, please allow me to try to explain again using different words.
Do you think this phrase helps to focus attention, or is it counterproductive?
Hi there. No, I don't think the phrase is helpful. It's not really meant to be taken seriously, and will draw attention to itself rather the subject of the RfC/U. Hope that helps. Athenean (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your comment was insightful.
I accept your good judgment; and I did strike out the sentence here --Tenmei (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA reassessment
An article that you have been involved in editing, Astronomy in medieval Islam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.
Turkish "mass landing of troops"
Hi
Just to let you know that I am unable to comment as I am neutral. It is not my intention to cause conflict but have made the RfC as another editor asked who could decide. I felt that an RfC would be best rather than to just keep going in circles on this matter as it seems happens every year or so.
Apologies as I know we have discussed this before :¬)
The source refers to the Illyrians and the Thracians which were the northern Paleo-Balkan tribes in constrast to the Greeks that were the southern ones.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like you said in one of your edit summaries, "stick to what the sources say please". Athenean (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation is needed in this case because the reader can't know to what the source refers so please don't insist on such an issue.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that is that by the 7th century BC, the various Paleo-Balkan tribes had already differentiated into Hellenes, Illyrians, Thracians, etc... Paleo-Balkan is a very vague term that should be used with care, not bandied about as a way of shouting "not Greek". Athenean (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean Paleo-Balkan doesn't mean that they once were the same tribe but they were the tribes that inhabited the Balkans in antiquity, so again you're making a terminology mistake. The northern ones were the Illyrians and the Thracians, while the southern the Greeks.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not making any mistake, Paleo-Balkan is a very vague term that is used to loosely group tribes that had little in common. I personally think it should be used with care, no bandied about whenever we want to "prove" that something is not Greek. Athenean (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Well the source doesn't refer to Greek tribes but to non-Greek ones specifically Illyrian and Thracian ones . Illyrian and Thracian artifacts are enlisted and then the source says:Indeed it was a centre for northern tribes etc.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 19:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Paleo Balkan" is strictly a linguistic term, to denote languages that were spoken in a specific area whose relationship to each other is unknown. It should only be used in a linguistic context. The way I see it, you have already added a sentence about Illyrian artifacts in 700-600 BC, so the second sentence is completely redundant. Shall we add a third one too? I left it there as a compromise. Don't push it. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Those two sentences are completely unrelated:the first one lists Illyrian artifacts while the second refers to the oracle's importance for northern and southern Paleo-Balkan people. Compromise is a result of dispute resolution not decisions to remove sourced content.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are in fact identical in spirit to anyone who knows a little about ancient religions. In those days, people left artifacts at places they considered holy. People didn't go to a holy place without leaving anything, nor did they leave votive artifacts in places that they didn't consider holy. Saying "place Y was holy to X" and "X left votive artifacts at Y" is really the same thing. Also note that the chronology is identical (700-600BC). I propose only one be kept, preferably the first. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)You're making OR deductions that aren't related any policy so I'll ask from someone else to intervene:FutureP.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 20:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC
Apology
I admit I was too hasty in introducing this quote. I thought as the quote related to Chinese superiority in methods of weapon production, it was not involved with the earlier quote about technology. Now that I have thought about it, it seems too similar ot the previous quote. I apologize for any mishaps this could have caused. I promise not to make another edit like this without prior discussion again.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IRC cloak
Hi, I see that you have requested an IRC cloak. However, we cannot proceed with the request if you don't register your nickname on IRC. For instructions on how to do that, please type /msg nickserv help register. Afterwards, you need to send a memo to finalize the process, by typing /msg memoserv send wmfgc IRC cloak request. Thanks. --Filip (§) 21:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Or at least I think so. Athenean (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NGC policy regarding modern placenams
What is your opinion on Irakleia, Serres or Amaxades? I usually do not occupy myself with modern articles, I just happened upon a user from Bulgaria who is adding Bulgarian untransliterated placenames into (usually) Greek articles according to NGC. I won't really pursue this issue but I started a discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29 to understand how this policy is to be interpreted. GK (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet Inc.
Congratulation on this perfect and detailed spi case. I bet all the administrators that had to deal with the lunacy of Sarandioti@socks will realize that we have his improved version in full motion now, per Fut's opinion. When this nationalistic madness will stop we have some real work to do: many wannabe ga's are waiting...Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is an increased disruptive ip activity on various articles. Have a look on: [[14]][[15]][[16]]. Seems they have attacked at the same time a variety of Albanian related articles. The 2 of them are possibly Guildenrich&LcelikuAlexikoua (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very possible, though I don't think the level of disruption is sufficiently severe that we need to notify the authorities. Athenean (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've excpected Beserks restores past disruptive edits, seems he was 'active' all the last months here.Alexikoua (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect an apology
For calling me or my edits "inane" multiple times. I will attribute this to your poor knowledge of English, but see this: you may know that you have called me an idiot several times now your last one being this. If you don't apologize within two hours of your next edit, I will take that as the n-th affront and will report you to an admin noticeboard. Sulmues(talk) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like you're just angry that you got your rollback taken away. That's what happens when you misuse tools given to you by the community. My knowledge of English is far, far superior to yours by the way, and I have known full well what "inane" means all this while. Glad you finally figured it out. Many, far too many of your edits are indeed inane, the perfect example being this [17], not to mention stuff like this [18][19]. When you don't have any idea what you're doing, and are editing subjects you know very little about, that's what happens. I haven't called you inane, but I stand by this characterization of your edits. Do what you need to do, but be warned that threats like the one you are making above are not looked upon kindly upon either by myself or the community. Now, stay off my talkpage, and if you come here and issue any more ultimatums like that it will be WP:AE for you. Clear? Athenean (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll email you if you want me off the talk page. --Sulmues(talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Teeninvestor
Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dance of Zalongo
Have a look at the article about dance of Zalongo. Read the talk page. Your help and advise is needed.Seleukosa (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems now more than clear that this guy will never give up. Socks, socks and again socks. I plan to open an spi since I have time, but every single edit makes the situation more than clear (wp:rfcs was Guildenrich's last resort after unsucessfull and extreme disruption attempts, like in Moscopole).Alexikoua (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Palasë
Thanks, If you have any further info I'll add your name to the DYK attribution. Dr.Blofeld 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you want me to let you know that I need an answer? --Sulmues(talk) 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep all these articles watchlisted, and I answer if or when I feel like it. There is no need to spam my talkpage with annoying notices. Athenean (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you watchlist every single article where you work, I won't bother you. --Sulmues(talk) 22:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello Athenean, i'm just letting you know that I've had complaints about some of your recent edits, particularly [21][22][23]. Your editing is getting too aggressive again. Please, consider being more careful about how you say things, and you might want to disengage for a while. If things continue as they are, or get worse, then I may have to step in again. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to not be polite and use polite wording even if you strongly disagree with someone.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 22:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the complains came from Zjarri's irc typical activity (again) of misinformation, since he is the one the launches endless accusations without even reading the article [[24]][[25]] Alexikoua (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the links of Athenean's edits and I'm not making accusations.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I received a complaint and I looked into it. This isn't the only complaint I have had about your edits, nor have they all come from this particular user. Please, Athenean, ease up on the accusations. I don't want to have to resort to sanctions, i'm sure we can all work it out. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets Inc.
Too bad Guildenrich's talkpage was deleted, due to data storage problems. I remember that Guilderich&socks communicated off wiki (via email) with Sarandioti&socks. Just recalled that Kreshnik (Sarandioti's sock) asked Guildenrich to activate his e-mail function.
So, do not wonder if their present reincarnations co-operate in a variety of articles in the near future.Alexikoua (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extremist activity in full swing, just take a look how they work together: the one (guildenrich) makes childish edits ignoring past consensus on several articles, the other misuses wp:ae whenever Guildenrich is reverted or ignored.Alexikoua (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arvanites
Just because I read it I intervened in that article.
The first paragraph deals with how they call themselves (partly Albanians, partly not):
Arvanites are those whose mother tongue is Arvanitika (name in Greek - Áñâáíßôåò)/ Arberichte (name in their language); most linguists use the word Albanian for that language, but the community loathes its use, and it is therefore advisable that this sensitivity be taken into consideration unless researchers and/or human and minority rights activists do not mind alienating the very community they are studying. Likewise, they call themselves Arvanites (in Greek) and Arberor (in their language); but in Northwestern Greece, in their language, they use the term Shqiptar (the same used by Albanians of Albania), a term strongly disliked by the other Arvanites, who also resent being called Albanians.
The last four paragraphs explain the reasons for such assimilation(even the title of those paragraphs is Current situation of the community and the language):
"the loss of the language was more pronounced in the villages close to Athens than elsewhere;....they have been led by the dominant unilingual Greek culture to -usually sincerely- believe that these languages are deficient, lack proper grammatical structure, have a poor vocabulary ....Since the 1980s, some efforts to preserve Arvanite culture have been made....Overall, though, this movement is weaker than similar ones among Vlachs and Macedonians (and certainly among officially recognized Turks)....One reason for such a slow movement is the apparent hostility of the Greek state to such ‘revivals’ among Arvanites.....Likewise, Arvanitika has never been included in the educational curricula of the modern Greek state. On the contrary, its use has been strongly discouraged at schools (and in the army) through physical punishment, humiliation, or, in recent years, simple incitation of the Arvanitika users (Williams, 1992:86; Trudgill, 1983:130-1). Such attitudes have led many Arvanite (as well as Vlach, and Macedonian) parents to discourage their children from learning their mother tongue so as to avoid similar discrimination and suffering (Trudgill, 1983:130)."
Do the math yourself. It doesn't look good for a supposed democratic country.
P.S. The intellectually honest thing would be to excuse yourself. Aigest (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't see the word partly in the text you added which can be interpreted as a misuse of a reference. Furthermore you went outside of the context of the entire reference. If you would take the care to read the entire text of report, if you really wanted that text (resent being called "Albanians") to be in the article you should have put the text "As a result of the Greek state pressure and policy" (the paragraphs in the end). For the sake of not creating another nationalistic edit war, I was refrained of entering that text, instead I choose only to remove your 'partly' wrong addition (although a thorough explanation would have deserved a topic in the article). You should have the honesty to admit that I was right in my choice. Aigest (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying yes. The source doesn't say that "state pressure" is the direct cause of the fact that Arvanites resent being called "Albanian". It doesn't connect the two. That is your own OR conclusion. Have you considered that there may be other reasons that they resent being called "Albanian"? For example, that they fought in the Greek War of Independence on the Greek side, and most troops on the Ottoman side were in fact Muslim Albanians? My addition is perfectly well sourced. Have a nice day. Athenean (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Athenean (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go cherry picking half sentences. As I explained above, your text is "partly wrong" (only a part resent called Albanian is what reference says and you used it wrong) and out of reference and lead context. Apparently you are not good at math. I don't want to make OR-ing in this case. GHM is clear on the issue, citing the last sentence "Such attitudes (Greek state policy (sic!)) have led many Arvanite (as well as Vlach, and Macedonian) parents to discourage their children from learning their mother tongue so as to avoid similar discrimination and suffering (Trudgill, 1983:130)". I will put it simple for you "They do so because of Greek state policy which have lasted for more than a century". I was trying to calm you guys down. If you want an edit war go ahead. You reaction to simple things guys remind me of Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementatAigest (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you are not good at English. The text doesn't say that "only a part resent being called Albanians". Except for the Chams (who are different from Arvanites). I think the best thing you said was that you wanted to avoid a revert war, so that's why you reverted me. Incredible. Athenean (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish people
Hi. What do you think about article Turkish people. I think that some users try to exaggerate the percentage of ethnic Turkish with using datum of Turkish citizen. And why did you think the CIA World Fact Book shouldn't be WP:RS ? When do you have time please specify your thought. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess: Someone (no prizes for guessing who) "complained" about me on IRC. Please do not accuse me of being racist again. There is nothing "racist" about my comments. There is a group of users voting as a national block on that page, and the quality of some of the arguments used is indeed quite low (if you actually bothered to read them). I am not saying the contributors are unintelligent or anything like that, I am commenting on their arguments, not the contributors themselves. I am starting to have serious doubts about your impartiality, and will take action if this IRC-based hounding continues. Athenean (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I showed the dif to DS without making any requests or asking for actions against you, so please don't make such comments about him. Athenean ease up on the accusations against other users(irc-based hounding, I have serious doubts about your impartiality) like the Wordsmith told you a few days ago.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 07:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about you ease up on scrutinizing every single thing I write and then "showing diffs" to the admins on IRC at every opportunity, behind my back? And you and DS chat every day on IRC, so yes, I am seeing a pattern here (just look at some of the above posts on this page). Athenean (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at the above posts on your talkpage I see an editing sanction by Stifle, a two-week topic ban and an expansion of the previous sanctions by The Wordsmith, DS advising you twice to be careful regarding your comments and The Wordsmith telling you to ease up on the accusations because otherwise he may have to step in again. I can't see a pattern but I think that all these comments wouldn't be on your talkpage if you eased up on some of your comments.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 10:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and both of them (DS and Shtifle) were misinformed by the same user via irc. This is quite boring.Alexikoua (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Stifle also sanctioned you back then as a result of an AE Athenean had started but Stifle's decision was based on a suggestion by FutureP. [26] It was an AE result and in fact I wasn't involved at all in that decision and never talked with Stifle at IRC. Alexikoua it would be prudent if you didn't make again such misinformative comments.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern I'm seeing is you diff-fishing through every single contrib of mine, then running to IRC to select admins of your choice and "showing difs" behind my back (and out of context, of course). I've lost count of how many times you've done that already. From WP:IRCWhen the channels are used to attack Wikipedians, or when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships., yet using IRC to attack me is exactly what you are doing. Next time you have a problem with something I say or do, have the decency to bring it up on my talkpage first, or some other public forum, instead of behind my back on IRC. If you continue to use IRC as a weapon against me (it seems you are trying very hard to get me banned), I will request that you be banned from IRC. Athenean (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Athenean that comment is a clear-cut npa violation. This time I think I'll start an AE. Btw I have never userd IRC as a weapon against you. In fact when you got topic banned I was the one who supported your santioncs getting reduced, but it seems that unfortunately my decision back then was a mistake.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean when I say something to you, so that you can refrain from doing certain actions or saying certain things, you usually tell me to stay off your talk page. Probably Zjarri has already used that channel of communication and has had my same fate? --Sulmues(talk) 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I was topic banned, Zjarri, you were trying your utmost to make sure I stayed topic banned [27], so stop misinforming the world. And my feeling is, you haven't stopped trying, denouncing me on IRC at every opportunity. My advice to you now would be to make articles, not wikidrama. Athenean (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Wordsmith was considering removing the ban completely, you were lobbying for four months. And now you are asking that I be indefinitely topic banned! Way to "support". Incredible. Bye now. Athenean (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we have again an endless misinformation attempt. Sorry but Zjarri. I feel you will never stop this paranoia.Alexikoua (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you posted the wikibreak tag User:Sulmues, didn;t lose the opportunity to make Pyrros Dimas (his long term obsession) Albanian by moving him to 'Pirro Dima', as always without discussion. In case you have to be off-wiki please avoid posting, if possible, such tags.Alexikoua (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I was a little worried something like might happen, but decided to post the template anyway. You're probably right though, I will avoid doing so in the future. Athenean (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Friend
Hope you are doing well. I have an issue and I would require your assistance. In the Hungary article user User:Gregorik keeps adding information from International Living Website which is in the Wikipedia Spam List (see History of Hungary article). I have explained this to him but he does not understand. Not only that but he is aggressive too: [28]. How can we solve this? Thanks! Avionics1980 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it. For the time being, I would recommend using the Quality of Life index published by The Economist, rather than this International Living Website. Athenean (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Since you mentioned the Economist Quality of Life index, maybe you also want to look at the Developed Country article. The standard Economist Quality of Life index used throughout Wikipedia has been recenlty replaced by this "Newsweek Quality of Life" which seems flawed compared to Economist. I had quite an argue on this and basically their excuse was that this index is more current than the Economist's. On the other hand the Economist index takes much more parameters into account and seems more reasonable than the Newsweek one, while it remains the standard used throughout Wikipedia articles. Have a look and please let me know. ThanksAvionics1980 (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)
I really do not understand your motivation in starting the tread at AN/I. The article is now at Occupation of Albania (1912–1913). I would assume that this is what you least wanted. It may however be too late for you to undo your request. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I am most likely the editor on Wikipedia who has voiced the strongest objections against the use of the word "occupation". If you do not want to be on my side, so be it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Athenian. Please have a look at talk page of Developed country article....Pretty unbelievable...Avionics1980 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats
Congrats for your 2nd nomination to DYK. Better things will come. --Sulmues(talk) 22:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Athenean until now has contributed to more than 20 dyk articles ('only' in articles I worked). It's really generous someone doesn't care about credits althouth contributed to a wide variety of dyked articles more than a year now.Alexikoua (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is under WP Greece, all the cities of current Greece where Albanians have lived in the past should be tagged WPSQ. Wouldn't you agree? --Sulmues(talk) 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only adding it to ancient Greek cities, so as to be consistent with other ancient city articles (Ephesus, Miletus...). You will of course have noticed that I have refrained from adding it to Saranda or Himara, even though Greeks live there. I have refrained from doing so in the interest of the general peace, which you would be wise to try and maintain. Athenean (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I don't tag Athens with WPSQ: in the interest of peace. But the Chameria settlements have to be tagged for the same reason why you would tag the ancient Greece cities. --Sulmues(talk) 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, if you tag "the Chameria" settlements I would have to tag every single town and village in Albania currently or formerly inhabited by Greeks. The equivalent to what I'm doing would be for you to tag Ancient Albanian cities in Greece. However, since there aren't any Ancient Albanian cities in Greece (or any Ancient Albanians for that matter), it seems you have a bit of a problem. Athenean (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your own definition, I don't know how well supported by WP Greece. Anyways I guess we can make up our own rules, since the scope of each of our wikiprojects is really represented by a handful of people. --Sulmues(talk) 03:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very quick to characterize every thing I do as "disruption". Your definition of "disruption" is very vague (perhaps the reason all your AE reports are completely ignored?). I suggest you stop that, and soon. Sometime people make mistakes, you know. Do I need to remind you of WP:AGF? Athenean (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll show good faith since you say it was just a mistake but please revert yourself.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already have (before you even posted). Athenean (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Albania
No, no it's a very common theory and almost all Albanians are supporting it --Vinie007 12:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AE
Please see this. A response would be appreciated. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for adding the plot summary on As Far as My Feet Will Carry Me, the article was way to stubby before that. It's great, and in my opinion underestimated, movie. Thanks! jonkerz♠ 13:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I enjoyed writing it. Some of the acting is not the best, but very good movie overall. Athenean (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Thriasian Plain
On 29 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thriasian Plain, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Seems Zjarithoues is a record breaker in wikipedia in reporting: 6 months of contributions and so far: 3 ae reports, 2 3rr, and 3 confirmed through irc reports (2 against CrazyMartini and 1 against you) total 8. Seems we have a record breaker (notice that apart irc reports -which were all of them reconsidered- all other reports are completely fruitless).Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not agree. Athenean (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal isn't about your admonishment, which isn't my decision or proposal. I'm merely proposing that if you're willing to not interact personally with me or make comments about me I'll do the same and in fact you're the one who has been complaining and reporting me long before I reported you.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 22:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing I'd want more than not interact with you in any way shape or form, however, I don't feel I should be legally bound to do so, unlike you. I have only ever filed one SPI against you (and included you in another, which I shouldn't have), so don't play the victim here. And I don't go around denouncing you on IRC either. Now is there anything else I can help you with today? Athenean (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Αρβανίτες
Στο 1821 ο Δημήτριος Υψηλάντης είχε γράψει στους τότε συμμάχους των Ελλήνων μουσουλμάνους Αρβανίτες ότι: «Είσθε απόγονοι των προγόνων μας ηρώων.» Αργότερα αναπτύχθηκε η «Πελασγική θεωρία», σύμφωνα με την οποία η Ελληνική και η Αλβανική γλώσσα έχουν κοινή ρίζα την Πελασγική ενώ οι ίδιοι οι Αλβανοί είναι Πελασγοί και ως εκ τούτου προήλθαν από την ίδια εθνολογική ρίζα με τους Έλληνες.
Σύμφωνα με άλλη εκδοχή της ίδιας θεωρίας οι Αλβανοί και οι Βλάχοι κατάγονται εν μέρει από τους αρχαίους Δωριείς, οι οποίοι αναμείχθηκαν με τους προέλληνες Πελασγούς. Όρισμένοι συγγραφείς υποστηρίζουν ότι η αλβανική ή η βλάχικη γλώσσα περιέχουν «ομηρικές» ή και «προομηρικές» λέξεις που δεν διασώζονται στην Κοινή Ελληνική, γι’ αυτό και τα αρβανίτικα και τα βλάχικα είναι πιο ελληνικά και πιο παλιά από την ελληνική γλώσσα που μιλιέται σήμερα.Δεν υπάρχει κανένα επιστημονικό τεκμήριο που να υποστηρίζει τέτοιες θεωρίες. Όλοι οι συγγραφείς που ανέφερα συγχέουν το σημερινό «εθνικό φρόνημα» των εν λόγω ομάδων με την καταγωγή τους.
Στα ελληνικά ο Αρβανίτης (ο αλβανόφωνος κάτοικος της Ελλάδας) διακρίνεται από τον Αλβανό (κυρίως τον κατοικο της Αλβανίας). Η διάκριση αυτή όμως δεν είναι μόνο ελληνική. Και στα επίσημα αλβανικά διακρίνεται ο Arbëresh (δηλαδή ο αλβανόφωνος της Νότιας Ιταλίας, της Ελλάδας ή της Δαλματίας που κατάγεται από Αλβανούς που μετανάστευσαν κατά τον Μεσαίωνα) από τον Shqiptar (δηλαδή τον Αλβανό της Αλβανίας και του Κοσσυφοπεδίου). Διακρίνεται και η arbërishte (η γλώσσα των αλβανόφωνων κατοίκων της Νότιας Ιταλίας και της Ελλάδας) από τη shqipe (δηλαδή την αλβανική γλώσσα της Αλβανίας και του Κοσσυφοπεδίου).Periptero (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AE, again
Per this AE thread, you are admonished for treating Wikipedia as a battleground and warned that repeated infractions may lead to a topic ban. Also, while you are not banned from interacting with ZjarriRrethues right now, please be reminded that grave-dancing, baiting and other disruptive activity will not be tolerated and will lead to a two-sided interaction ban. T. Canens (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Aktio-Preveza Undersea Tunnel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
