User talk:NikoSilver

Tools

Archives
Jan 28 – Mar 28, 2006 Mar 28 – May  2, 2006 May  2 – May 29, 2006 May 29 – Jun  8, 2006 Jun  8 –

Remarks

1. I will post responses below your comment right here, so "watch" my page (or select to watch whatever you edit in your prefs). Same I will expect from you when I message you. Otherwise, continuity is completely lost.
2. You can spy if you want... Only morons don't use e-mail when they want to conspire...
3. My e-mail application actually has a bell thingy. I'll read them faster if you don't message me as well that you sent me one. Actually, it'd be more alarming to send me an e-mail, telling me you've left a message in my talk! :-)
4. This talk is being automatically archived using User:Werdnabot/Archiver. All comments that are older than 10 days are removed and placed in the respective archive. In the rare case I don't respond to a comment, please remind me so.
5. Sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) that produce your name and the datestamp. The automatic archive doesn't work if it doesn't see a timestamp!

---

Δε θα κάνεις archive το talk page σου ποτέ; Telex 1 3 : 0 5 , 2 M a y 2 0 0 6 ( U T C )

Μπα! :NikoSilver: ^{(T) @ (C)} 1 3 : 1 8 , 2 M a y 2 0 0 6 ( U T C )

---

Eχεις δικιο

""Πίστεψέ με, οι περισσότεροι πλούσιοι που ξέρω ενδιαφέρονται πολύ περισσότερο απ΄όσο νομίζεις (αλλά αυτό είναι εκτός θέματος -μην το πάμε ταξικά). Εν πάσει περιπτώσει, να το διαγράψουμε δεν μπορούμε, άρα, "if you can't beat them, join them.""

Εχεις δικιο φιλε, αλλα αυτο το αρθρο δεν επρεπε ποτε να ειχε ξεκινησει, αλλα τετοια λαθη γινονται, τι να κανουμε! Ζητω συγνωμη αν σε προσβαλα με τον χαρακτηρισμο "κολωνακιωτες" ο οποιος εκ των υστερων ειναι λανθανσμενος. Απλα ηταν η πρωτη λεξη που μου ηρθε στο μυαλο για να χαρακτηρησω τους τοσους αδιαφορους. Θελει πολυ εντιτ αυτο το αρθρο για να μην προσβαλει κανεναν. Εμενα με εξοργισε και θα κανω οτι μπορω ωστε αν δεν γινεται να διαγραφει, τοτε να μετριαστει το υφος του :) --KaragouniS 16.57 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kala einai topa

Ti kanis! eimai poli arrousti! alla topa einai to spiti pali.

UN, La Francophonie και ΠΓΔΜ

Και στους δύο οργανισμούς η ΠΓΔΜ έχει μπει ως "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html και " Ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine" http://www.francophonie.org/oif/membres.cfm

Για ποιό λόγο στα αντίστοιχα τους άρθρα http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_member_states#Current_members και http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Francophonie#Europe αναφέρεται ως "Republic of Macedonia"; Αφού η ίδια χώρα έχει δεχτεί αυτή την ονομασία στους παραπάνω οργανισμούς, το λογικό είναι στα συγκεκριμένα άρθρα τα links να είναι the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakis79 (talk • contribs) 10:52, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

Το θέμα έχει ήδη τεθεί με αρχή το Template:EU countries and candidates. Δες το σχετικό talk. Μόλις εδραιωθεί η συγκεκριμμένη λύση, θα προωθηθεί σε όλα τα σχετικά άρθρα. Θα σε ενημερώσω για σχετικές συζητήσεις. •NikoSilver• 11:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ti kanis Niko! Ego einai kalo topa! anyway, I have an idea. I think we should put the moving Macedonia map in Macedonia Region as well as in Macedonia terminology what do you think? Yasou! Heraklios 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Bravo! ole einai entaksi Heraklios 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Δεν βλέπω να προχωράει το θέμα... αν αρχίσω να τα αλλάζω (αυτά που πρέπει), θα αρχίσουν να μου τα χώνουν και να με λένε βάνδαλο! Καμιά ιδέα; :-) xvvx 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Μην ανησυχείς. Περίμενε προς το παρόν. •NikoSilver• 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

:)

- Francis Tyers · 15:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I got them and will be looking at them this morning. During the week I don't have internet access after 7pm. - Francis Tyers · 08:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The new West's eye on the Balkans

See this draft. It was drawn as a supposed solution to the Balkan Question - strictly ethnical boundries. They see a Confederate "Serb State" composed out of Serbia (but with only North Kosovo), Montenegro, most southern Croatian coastlan and the Serb Republic, whereas a greater Albania would be created with a greater part of Kosovo-Metohija and with mostnorthwestern Macedonia. Croatia would receive the mostsouthwestern Croat-populated part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the rest of BiH would become an independent Bosniak country. They also see a part of Romania as a part of Hungary and a part of Bulgaria as a part of Turkey. Population resettlement is predicted (especially on Kosovo).

Notice they left you guys out? :))) --PaxEquilibrium 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not fair. Albanians get to fulfill their irredentist dreams against Serbia. Why don't Greeks get to fulfill their irredentist dreams against Albania (Northern Epirus)!--Tekleni 22:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do they see part of Bulgaria as part of Turkey and who are 'they'? •NikoSilver• 23:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

They see it in this text.--Tekleni 23:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is 'they' and what does the text say? •NikoSilver• 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tou exo pei 100 fores gia tin Konstantinoupoli alla den katalabainei ki epimenei sto na xrisimopoiei to omonimo arthro os pigi. Genika einai o pio peismataris kai spasarxidis wikipedios pou exo gnorisei pote mou, nomizo irthe i ora na ton karfosoume gia ta tria rho. Miskin 00:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Eimai se dileimma tora na ton karfoso i oxi. Leo na tou tin xariso elpizontas oti tha symorfothei. An ksanarxisei aurio tha tou tin xoso. Prepei na exei kanei toulaxiston 5 rvs, alla sta poustika, mazi me edits kai einai dyskolo na entopistoun. Elpizo na min exo kseperasei ki ego ta 3 omos. Miskin 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever

First of all, the suggestion that Istanbul was not in use before 1930 is absurd. I am also willing to wager that "it was not official" because no name was actually official - we both know, however, the one used by the Ottomans then and the Turks now. I do not care about the symbol's sttatus, but I know irrelevant links do not belong. Even if statements about the name adoption would not be the halftruths they are, I still have to point out that the link should lead to where the information is - in this context, pointing out "the year when it became official" makes no sense on Earth. My very point was always about not providing misleading links: I thought it was clear enough, therefore I had assumed you lied when you told me I was wrong about the article. In what concerns the manual of style, I was therefore right. Consider the purpose of linking, if you will. If not, carry on the POV-pushing on every single small topic. Either way, whatever. Dahn 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. •NikoSilver• 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Niko, I think Dahn has a point here. The question is not whether the linguistic forms "Istanbul" or "Constantinople" were most common or most relevant in the period in question, but whether the Wikipedia articles Istanbul or Constantinople contain the content most relevant for the reader at that point. And as for the linguistic history, my understanding is also that Dahn is right: 1930 only saw the final decision of getting rid of the the alternative forms ("Konstantiniyye" etc.) in the official state documents and buraucracy; but the form "Istanbul" wasn't just invented out of thin air on that date. It must of course have been the normal everyday name used in Ottoman Turkish all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aiming to remove the link from Istanbul. I only linked also Constantinople. I think that since the only thing we know for sure is that the 'Istanbul' name was officialized in 1930, we may link both names. I admit that part of my reaction was due to the general disruptive behavior against the other contributors (frequent edit conflicts etc) plus this edit summary (especially after my polite warning). I wouldn't edit war over something so trivial, but I really think that it has to be linked because it doesn't hurt! •NikoSilver• 18:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Please leave my talk page!

I happened to be browising back to this page, Niko, and I note that you are again providing halftruths. "I admit that part of my reaction was due to the general disruptive behavior against the other contributors" - you may have whatever opinion you feel like having about my edits, Niko, but "disruptive" is a word that would need proof. I have protested against POV getting in the text, and was faced with a cabal of editors who reverted any contribution I made on principle. When the disruptive behavour of other editors stopped, virtually all my edits were kept in the text per agreement with all contributors to the article. In fact, if you were to have had the curtesy to actually look into what the disagreements were before shouting wolf, you would have noted that I never objected to Greek contributions, and that I was generally protesting against the very bad idea of splitting the article. Also note that I was, at the time, dealing with edits who struck deep in the territory of Romanian history without the editors having a clue what they were talking about (and merely editing on the belief that I was wrong). Throughout the process, I (unlike some Greek contributors) appealed to no outside help, believing that stacking is not an acceptable tactic, and aknowledging that I was to discredit my edits if I were to present mine as a "Romanian POV" (it was not, and I never saw a piece of evidence -or at least familiarity with the topic- from anyone that said it was). And, in general, feel free to comment on my POV when you will see me carrying banners suggesting how other countries should rename themselves!

I stand by my original assessment, Niko, and I deserve an explanation. You say that "I wasn't aiming to remove the link from Istanbul. I only linked also Constantinople. I think that since the only thing we know for sure is that the 'Istanbul' name was officialized in 1930, we may link both names" (btw, "officialized in 1930" IS NOT "the only thing we know for sure" - it is obvious to anyone that the name was in use before 1930, that no name was actually "official" in the sense that it has today during the Ottoman period, and that languages such as my own have borrowed and used the term "Istanbul" from as far back as the 17th century). And yet, your edit summary said: "rv check again when it ends - be polite". Which means that you either had not looked through the article, or that you had and you were claiming that it ended where you wanted it to end. In either case, you were hiding the truth. Don't worry, you were not the first one: Miskin had been doing the very same, on the very same topic.

On the issue of "linking Constantinople as well" - Niko, I still do not believe you are official instructor on this topic, but, as we stand now, it is misleading (provides a link to an irrelevant article) and overlinking (if Constantinople and Istanbul are one and the same, it is incomprihensible why one would link them both, side by side). As I have said: GO AHEAD and ask the people who contributed the article WHY THEY STOPPED IN THE 15TH CENTURY. If you feel like it, campaign for them to change it there. Do not gather points by linking irrelevant things on related pages just because those contributors are not looking everywhere, and actuallu explain yourself where it matters. Dahn 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I promise to read that if you manage to summarise it to at least half. For now, please don't flood my page. •NikoSilver• 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Witty. Dahn 20:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will still urge you to read the entire message, Niko. I have the right not to be misrepresented, and I have the right to defend my image as an editor in as many words as I wish. Dahn 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I give you that. I will read it. Take my comment as a general advice though. If I may. •NikoSilver• 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it (pheww). :-) Now to the point:

• Nobody called me, if that's what you imply. I had watchlisted this article months ago, and intervened because I saw it jumping like a bean in my watchlist.

I didn't imply anything about you. I had merely noted that, at the time, I was trying to get through to a couple of inflamed IPs that they should actually inform themselves on what the topics are. They had been called to the article because it had been advertised (with the added bias) on the project page. That is what I call disruptive. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know. Thanks for clarif. Case closed. --NS

Any time. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Case closed as per the fact you didn't mean I was called. That doesn't mean I endorse the rest of your comment.--NS

• I use WP:POPUPS. While editing, the image of Constantinople popped-up, showing me the intro without the dab note above. The intro clearly says 1930.

Well, then, you must have missed my point every one of the two hundred times I had made it. I had asked you to look into where the article's text ended, not when the use of the name allegedly did. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't imagine that intro and history would have different dates. The intro clearly says 1930. --NS

Niko, I suggest you actually read the article. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have. What is your point? --NS

• Disruption: You may disagree, but I find your authoritative tone, your consecutive intermingled edits, and the length of all your comments disruptive. Kindly WP:COOL, and wait for the others to finish what they are doing. Then talk/edit and most of all: be brief! There are NO WP:MASTODONS around to eat you up and The World Will Not End Tomorrow!! Also see Laconic.

Well, I find disregarding and condescending one's point disruptive. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't go back to square one. I read it. Take my advise and enjoy reading at least WP:MASTODONS! --NS

I have more neutral people to take advice from. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Than the writers of WP:MASTODONS? On what grounds? Ah, now I see: That was meant as a WP:NPA. Silly me, I thought WP:AGF would work. --NS

• Misleading: Nothing is misleading. Both articles are interlinked. An additional link cannot be 'misleading'. The lack of a link could, but I didn't unlink Istanbul.

Yes, it is. First of all: the article currently says "present-day Istanbul" - which would imply that "Istanbul" is a secondary link,and that the relevant info is provided at the "Constantinople" article. It is not, so the link has no point being there. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you forget for once about where this part of history is included? Rephrasing can solve the 'present-day' thing. --NS

To answer your question: no, I can't. In fact, I should not. I don't think editing on wikipedia and condoning historical revisionism can go hand in hand. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you can write a book of arguments on why linking a name to an existing article (that would exist either way within the text) can be revisionistic! --NS

• Overlinking: Check Talk:Gdansk/Vote for a precedent. Phanariotes is a Greece related article. This whole thing is debatable but it is soooo stupid, that nobody on earth would start an edit-war about it, reverting it all the time!! (disruption)

"Phanariotes is a Greece related article". Say I were to believe that it is Greece-related article (although it looks to me like more of a Balkans- and Ottoman-related article, especially given that Greece did not exist at the time). Say I did. So? What is your point and how is it supposed to connect with the issue?

I am familiar with the Gdansk precedent, and I note, as I did then, that Danzig was chosen as the link name in articles dealing with the history of the city before some date (I think it is 1918). Precisely my point, Niko: if the article deals with Constantinople not before 1930, but before 1453, what you indicate as a parallel has no relevancy. This is why I advised you to go and ask them to change format in that page. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We will, at a later date. Gdansk is relative, because Phanariotes (and not... Feneriotes) called it like that. Didn't they? Their descendants still do. --NS

"We will" - there you go, Miskin. This is the type of mentality one has to deal with. Again: no, not "at a latter date" - one does not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, Niko! impose a convension at its source, then modify related articles accordingly - otherwise, you are using conventions that you dreamt of last night. The rest of your reply is just a rudimentary pamphlet (Phanariotes is the term as preferred in English; Phanariotes had several lines of succession; the issue of Phanariotes use or do not use Greek or any other language is of no possible relevancy to the use of a word in an English article). Let me also note that you are again switching answers, this time from the "I just wanted both of them linked" argument you gave to a good faith user just above! Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The term preferred in English just happens to be the transliteration of the Greek word Φαναριώτες. Maybe your Romanian History expertee expands to Greek orthography as well? Teach me. As per the relevance, Gdansk/Danzig apart from dates is also used in the respective countries' articles. That is a lot heavier than just linking a term that would exist either way. --NS

• You may brag about being an expert in Romanian history if you wish, but not in the context of underestimating other users' knowledge and effort.

I am not "an expert on Romanian history", Niko. I am, however, more of an expert than anyone who tells me that the Ghicas were not allowed to declare themselves Greek after 1821 (by whom?!) and, at the same time, that no Phanariotes in Romania were really Greeks to begin with. For all the edits made by those editors in the area of Romanian history, Niko, no reference was being provided: all of them were subjective, utterly uninformed, and ultimately absurd comments on topics that I happened to know, if you will, the bare essential on. But I did know the bare essential, Niko. Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't go into details and I don't want to be dragged in the actual debates there. I am speaking about ways of debating, not the views themselves. And you are doing it again. --NS

Great. Perhaps, if we were to sit in front of each other and argue, you could also tell me a need a mint, I need to tuck my shirt in my pants, and what not. If you do have to be the critical sophist, be that for everybody involved. And no, I did not ask you either to give me your insight on Romanian history: I'm pretty sure you would have nothing to contribute. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Naaah, don't apologize! You'll spoil the fun of how insisting a guy can be over two brackets!

• I repeat: The only thing we know for a fact is that the term Istanbul was officialized in 1930. Everything else is an assumption. A rational one, but still, an assumption. It's also out of the point, because even if all appellations pre-existed, then also all should be linked.

So, you tell me that the term Istanbul was not in use, at all, before 1930? They just invented it, right? There is no written document used by the Ottomans featuring the word? And, even if this theory were to hold water, care to tell me why you and others who support it do not go and campaign for it on the article that refuses to extended the history of "Constantinople" after the 1450s? Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you tell me that it did. I just say what I know: It was officialized in 1930. Before that, there was no official name, so Istanbul is as wrong as Constantinople may be. It's just that Phanariotes didn't call it as the former. --NS

Care to check it our, Niko? Perhaps it is possible that you may now for sure if it was used, instead of trusting pieces of propaganda. I have already answered why it is of no importance what the Phanariotes called it (especially when they did not provide the links on wikipedia); and just perhaps you will see that a person living in the city is not necessarily the master of that city (as German-speakers were in Danzig). Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Check what out? Do you have a source that it was official before 1930? WTF does this have to do with propaganda or who was the master? To use your words, go change that intro first! --NS

• Personal comment: You have a great potential, but you exhaust yourself in insignificant details.

•NikoSilver• 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, should I go and unlink it now? Because it is insignificant, you see, therefore it shuld not matter one way or the other... Dahn 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The action of going ahead and linking it is much less provocative than that of unlinking it. You understand why. I would advise you didn't. Even if I wouldn't intervene (which I can't guarantee because I am not convinced) someone else will, and the whole process will be disrupted again over TWO FUCKING BRACKETS! (Jeez I needed that scream! huh? no mastodons? :-)) •NikoSilver• 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go, Niko: the word and its brackets are insignificant, right? So then ould be unlinking it - which would also confirm with wikipedia usage. Am I "provocative" for reverting something insignificant into an insignificant something else, especially when I do it following guidelines?! Who am I provoking? Those who have trouble understanding the Manual of Style? Those who have trouble reading an article all the way through? Let me stress this: if you were to have succeeded in moving and stabilizing the content 1453 to 1930 (or at least 1453 to 1918) content of the Istanbul article to the second half of Constantinople, I personally would have been helping to move and sort links in the articles in that direction. Since this is not the case, you and all the crowd of various users and IPs make no sense. I am probably not going to remove the link, as the perspective of hide-and-seek games with you and other master sophists is far from enchanting; however, this debate served to understand your motivations and your blatant POV. I will instead consider dropping a note to non-biased users interested in the history of the city, as well as one to Turkish users, to see how they feel the matter should be dealt with. Such a liberal use of conventions in order to prove various point deserves a serious looking into. Dahn 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Provocative, because the article exists, and why not be linked as many other words/terms in many other articles. Linking it has a justification: it exists and that doesn't hurt. Unlinking it would only be because of POV. Again: I didn't unlink Istanbul! Why does the history section have to match when there is a dab note on top? Why must users interested in that part of previous history not be able to click and read? Go figure. On the other hand, be my guest. I'll be more than happy to see your insistense further exposed. Do whatever you please, just be gone from my talk page. Your escalated repetitive disruption over nitches (at best) prevents me from making useful edits. •NikoSilver• 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gligan

I warned him that such behaviour is totally out of place here (and in general) and suggested contributing to other topics instead of personal and national attacks and ultranationalist POV. I hope he'll reconsider hsi behaviour. Todor→Bozhinov 08:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.•NikoSilver• 10:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this still ongoing, or nationalism is yet again controlled?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sig

I admit, I'm starting to get the "span" tags and I want £££££££££££££££ from you! (kidding) I know a few color codes now. I was inspired by your signature shop but I'll never be the new N!. Thanks for the inspiration that you didn't want to give to me! •Sean•gorter•^(Talk) 03:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've redesigned my userpage. Check it out! If you're computer is slow, you-know-what! •Sean•gorter•^(Talk) 05:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

--Pegasusbot 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean gorter (talk • contribs)

If this was a joke, I apologize for spoiling it... Duja 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still a joke because тхе гуз спеакс тхе трутх! •NikoSilver• 12:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Βελλ, ιφ θατ'ς θε κασε... σορρυ. Ντουγια 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that the new fad or something? Write English in various other alphabets? Btw, it is colloquially гъз, not гуз.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Όχι, αυτό είναι που εγώ θα κάνω μόδα! •NikoSilver• 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not him.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

He is indef blocked already, I just marked the user page.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ρε Νικο!

Εσενα τι σε πειραζουν τα ρατσιστικα σχολια? Δεν ειπα και τιποτα φοβερο, για το τζαμι στην αθηνα ειπα! Ιδιαιτερως μου μιλας και εδω, δεν χρειαζεται να δωσω το μειλ μου (και να δει κανεις αυτα που μου λες δεν πειραζει). Φιλικα Mitsos 13:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ox, kai sy pou kolas! Pes oti exeis na peis kai egw 8a to diagrapsw. Den nomizw oti auto pou 8es na mou peis einai kai toso kako (ektos an 8es na me arxiseis sta binelikia, opote giati na sou dosw to mail?). Sorry gia ta greeklish, alla me pairnei mia wra na grapsw ellinika. Mitsos 13:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Otan les asyndeto me mena enoeis to site pou mou edeikses. Omws pws mporw na ftiaksw mail ekei? Telospantwn, esy ti provlhma exeis afou den 8es na grapseis kati kako? Mitsos 14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

E, den xreiazetai na mou peis kai to onoma sou h thn dieuthinsh kai tetoia! Koita ti kalh syzhthsh kanoume me ton User:Subversive element kai leme kai proswpika pragmata. Mitsos 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Den leei pouthena Subscribe now leei Sign Up Now Mitsos 10:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sto sign up process sto Word verification: ti grafw??? Mitsos 11:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Truce

Sure no problems :)) It is true that we got off to a wrong start. U know, we can disagree but it's never personal.. so truce - u r right, it would be more constructive if we took it down a notch :) take care man Baristarim 10:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

el:Σαφρανβολου

Re your message in el:wiki, I'll do it with pleasure. Kindly tell me which syllable is stressed (accented) in Safranbolu to rename/move the page. I suspect it is in the end (Safranbolú)? Also, it's -bolou, not -volou, right? In that case I'll have to move it to Σαφρανμπολού (notice accent in the end and composite b-sound with mp).•NikoSilver• 20:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Niko:) b-sound is really interesting. I try to find it but couldn't. Does that sound's usage low on Greek language? What is the difference of ú. Is it some effect to lengthen u sound? --Ugur Basak 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Greek language doesn't specialise in what it calls barbaric (hard) sounds. (Actually, etymologically, Barbarian is someone who's tongue makes an incomprehensible to Greeks bar-bar sound!) We don't have B, we don't differentiate it from MP or MB or plain B sounds either. The same we don't have D, (we write NT) and do not differentiate it from NT or ND or plain D. Every Greek word can be pronounced either way, but usually it is the softest (mp and nt) sounds that prevail.

For stress, no it's not lengthened or somthing. I'll give you an example: The English word democrátic versus the French pronounciation democratíque. The first has a stress in A and the second in I. Greek language needs that accent where the stress is, to show the reader where to stress, because we generally use more vowels and less consonants. •NikoSilver• 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your brief explanation on Greek language. İyi geceler(καλή νύχτα [i can see stresses]). --Ugur Basak 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in like this, but I think think Safranbolu can be called Θεοδωρούπολη and Σαφράμπολη in Greek.--Tekleni 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The English version (Safranbolu) has the coordinates. Can you check it on an online map? •NikoSilver• 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Όχι. Πάω για ύπνο: iyi geceler :-) --Tekleni 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi my friend, User:Kober got it. User talk:Sosomk So, we call Greeks "wise people". :)Sosomk 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Phanariote

Τα έχω πάρει στο κρανίο μ'αυτό τον τύπο στους Phanariote. Είδα ότι επιμένει να αφαιρεί το link για την Κωνσταντινούπολη, ενώ συνεχώς του λέω ότι στο σχετικό άρθρο αναφέρεται ότι η πόλη κράτησε ως επίσημο το όνομα αυτό έως το 1930 (βλ. Constantinople), οπότε το link είναι τουλάχιστον χρήσιμο, για να μην πω απαραίτητο. Το επανέφερα και είμαι διατεθειμένος να το τραβήξω μέχρι τέλος, για να πάρει ένα μάθημα επιτέλους! Δεν είναι συμπεριφορά συνεργάσιμου Wikipedian αυτή! Κάνει τέτοια σαματά για ένα link! Eίναι σοβαρός;! Δε θέλω να είμαι εθνικιστής, αλλά για χάρη του θα γίνω! Θέλω να προσέχεις και εσύ το άρθρο και να επέμβεις, όταν αρχίσει το μπουγιουρντί! Ίσως αν επέμβουμε όλοι μαζί να μαζευτεί λίγο!

Θα στείλω σχετικό μήνυμα και στο Miskin. Ψήφισες;--Yannismarou 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Georgian name

Hi Niko. My sources chiefly speak about the Byzantine influence on Georgian royal imagery. Inasmuch as most late ancient/early medieval Georgian philosophers and scholars were educated in the Byzantine centers, the name Berdzeni is most probably based on the notion that philosophy was born in Greece. I remember I have read about it somewhere, but unfortunately I could not find the source directly stating that. Regards, Kober 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Modern Greeks also deserve the name, btw. :)--Kober 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Thanks! eixa ksexasei pou eixes pei na vrw piges... Tha psaksw na vrw ki alla! PS: den kanw asfalistika metra se filarakia...:) Ciao Hectorian 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of foreign language on talk pages

These ridiculous accusations are primarily against me, but they aslo involve you. Tale a look also at my talk page (bottom) and at User talk:Ghirlandajo#Re to your request. In the last case, check also the history of the article to see an answer of mine this specific user arbitrarily deleted. You'll also see from the deleted answer why this user has a personal problem with me.--Yannismarou 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, your comments are misleading. I don't have "a personal problem" with you. Neither do I "accuse" you of anything as you seem to imply. I just want to make clear whether we have a certain guideline and whether adopting such a guideline would be reasonable. As best I know, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground and use of native languages in the English version of the project is discouraged. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don;t allow to anybody to call me a conspirator! This was the worse insult somebody could make to me. Now, Ghirla, you'll face the consequences of your mere words.--Yannismarou 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)