User talk:Aristovoulos

Hello Aristovoulos,

I have reverted your edits on the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus as they were highly POV. I know its a really poor article but please do not delete large paragraphs of text unless you have reached a concensus on the discussion page. Thanks Adam777 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very poor

NPOV

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! —Khoikhoi 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the TRNC article

Hi Aristovoulos,

I reverted some of your edits because they did not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please take the time to briefly read up on that page. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 21:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. . I reverted your edits to the intro of the TRNC article. Also please refrain from the personal attacks on the TRNC talk page.Adam777 11:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spreading your propaganda.

Right now i'm not even sure if i'm talking to a real person or a bot running somewhere in greece. Zazaban 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geia sou file, an theleis, kai mono an theleis, pes mas kati gia to eauto sou, akoma kai as einai ti pineis kai tetoies saxlamares ;-). Apla to leo gia na gnorizomaste ligo kalytera. Kales douleies kai ta xanaleme. Politis 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xaire Politi. Gevome krithino oino apolamvanontas to alla eknevrizome me ola ta skilia. Esi pos paei?

The Miracle

Hi. I am mentioning this here as I dont want this to get involved in the upcoming mediation regarding the TRNC. You recent additions to the history section are a direct copy and paste from Leonidas Koumakis's 'The Miracle a true story'. The information is pertient, though some parts of it arent neutral. However by doing a direct copy and paste you may be in violation of copyright. You might want to re-write that information or get a fair use agreement for it, as it is doubtful that another editor will let it stand. I will not touch it as I dont want to begin an edit war. Adam777 12:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you claim that they are not neutral? Prove it --Aristovoulos 12:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the most devious and underhand manner, Britain started to implement its policy of "divide and rule" Does that sound neutral to you? Even if those accusations are correct there is a better way to put that on wikipedia. In any case you are in breech of copyright and that entry will have to be re-written. Adam777 12:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse. A British Policy in practice. We can see it in all British Colonies. Look at Kashmir for insance.-- Oh i see since you are British whatever is not pro Britain must be POV and not NPOV. How do you think Colonies came to be? Cyprus was leased for goodness sake from the Ottomans Imagine that... The peoples were slave? in 1800's? Leased a country full of people? Full of Greek that the world affirms they were the creators of lets say "Democracy"... and you think that divide and conquer must be POV????Aristovoulos 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, that is a policy of wikipedia. This is the second time you have accused me of a national bias, I consider this is a borderline personal attack. Once again you are incorrect. Before the ENGLISH conquered the world they first invaded the Welsh. They oppressed us as baddly as anybody else so your assumption is, once again, incorrect. Look, I know that its never nice when people disagree with you but this is wikipedia. I highly recomend you learn how to handle disagreements in a mature manner without resorting to accusations of bias based on where you THINK people happen to come from. Your edits are mostly not neutral. As I said before if the entry I added above is correct then there is a BETTER way to write it than the current way which isnt neutral.

I hope you get used to the way wikiepedia works and you add pertinant information to the site to leave it a better tool. Thats the point after all. Adam777 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still you havent explained why it is a POV and not neutral. As a welsh you should know of the Roman strategy that the English put to practice. In cyprus divide and rule was done in the most devious and underhand manner. Nothing personal.--Aristovoulos 13:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. Lets stick with the example in hand which reads "In the most devious and underhand manner, Britain started to implement its policy of "divide and rule".

Now then firstly the accusation needs to be proved, however lets assume that it is correct and there was a set policy of 'divide and rule' in place. The words 'Devious' and 'Underhanded' are Wesel Words and are not encouraged on Wikipedia. The trick to keeping information in place and retaining a neutral POV is to avoid such weasel words.

So the example could be reworded 'The British implemented a policy of "Divide and Rule". That still adds the relevent information and removes the weasel words which arent factual they are somebodys opinion about the policy of "Divide and Rule". Adam777 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, i do not know how familiar you are with the history of Cyprus. The English in Cyprus not only implemented the strategy of divide and rule between the Turks and the Greeks but they did while deceiving and turning Greeks against Greeks and Turks against Turks in a very underhanded manner. Your suggestion excludes the way divide and rule was implemented and its form. An example of this is that the Turks claim soil in the Republic of Cyprus "Turkish Republic in Cyprus" while the British "run away" in essense with two sovereign British Bases".

(A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue). Weasel words is all we need then to reach NPOV. right?

ok here it goes. The Turkish Protectorate on the occupied soil of the Republic of Cyprus refered as (TRNC). That is sound NPOV. correct?

According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." [1]

--Aristovoulos 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aristovoulos I am with you on the British divide & rule tactics - this has been used in other places too - in fact most of the colonial powers (espcially France) did this. As a British subject I am ashamed at some of the acts the British perpetrated in their colonial period. Rhyddfrydol 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yasou. I've left a comment at the talk page. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) —Khoikhoi 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's great, we've been having nice whether recently. BTW, are you from Cyprus? —Khoikhoi 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selam Aristovoulos. I reverted because you (no offense) unilaterally changed the definition of the article without any consensus to do so on the talk page, or any support at all. I think we should stick with the original intro for now, and make modifications when we have agreed upon things. I'll make a comment at the talk page now. —Khoikhoi 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: TRNC

On the TRNC talk page I have suggested the use of a poll to decide if "de facto" is a legitimate description. If this is satisfactory, please let me know. LawrenceTrevallion 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One note: the term "de facto state" is also used in the second paragraph. Does this concern you, or are you more concerned about the introduction? If you wish to eliminate all uses in the article, that should be voted upon. LawrenceTrevallion 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aristovoulos, I put a proposal up under 5.2 of the TRNC page that concerns our mediation. LawrenceTrevallion 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude....read up on what a meatpuppet is according to wikipedia. Basically its a person that a user brings to wikipedia to help push a certain point of view. Sixten66 is a meatpuppet by that definition. Anyway here is what I suggest. I am not comfortable with the informal mediation anymore. Laurance already declatred that 'de facto' was the correct term to use but you have ignored that. That plus the appearance of a meatpuppet makes me lose confidence in either the results of a vote or your inclination to adhere to the results of a vote. I say we take this to a formal mediation where when they decide then we BOTH have to adhere to their judgement. If you want to take care of this disagreement once and for all then thats the way to do it. If you want to start that process then I will join in and make my case to them. If not then I am happy to leave things as they are. Adam777 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot step in if Adam777 withdraws from the debate as I am not part of the formal mediation process here. My mediation is non-binding, nor do I have an official role in the Wikipedia administration. As for Adam777's comments, what specifically has offended you? LawrenceTrevallion 15:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geia

Mou afhses mhnyma sto arxeio 6 (!) kai oxi sthn talk selida mou. To eida kata tyxh molis twra. Anyway, den grafw to mail mou anoixta sthn WP (kai 8a symbouleya na kaneis to idio gia na mhn gemiseis spam), alla eimai kataxwrhmenos, (pragma pou einai asfalestato). Otan kataxwreis thn diey8ynsh sou sthn WP, tote mporeis na steileis e-mail kai se allous. Kaneis den blepei th diey8ynsh sou, ektos apo aytous pou lambanoun mhnyma sou. Kane log-in kai klikarise panw-panw ta 'preferences' gia na baleis th dieyuynsh sou. Meta, 8a labeis ena epibebaiwtiko mhnyma e-mail, pou prepei na kaneis oti leei gia na confirmareis th diey8ynsh sou. Katopin, mporeis na mou steileis mhnyma an mpeis sth selida mou kai klikareis 'E-mail this user' sto toolbox sou, katw de3ia sthn o8onh. An exeis problhma, grapse mou sthn talk selida mou. :NikoSilver: 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply again

I reverted because it seemed that the intro had hardly changed at all since last time. I already explained that that stuff doesn't belong in the intro. However, I have made some changes, in attempt to make things more neutral. Are there any more concerns? —Khoikhoi 01:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I do understand your angst over Northern Cyprus .... I do share your concerns because I am pro-Commonwealth, and the Turkish part of the island does not take part in Commonwealth activities (and they have converted cathedrals into mosques ... but that is a different subject). However I am concerned about your rants on the Northern Cyprus discussion page. Wikipedia needs to be neutral - I fear that you are not neutral on the subject of the Northern Cyprus. For the record I am not a Turk, nor a Greek, and I am not pro-Turkey, but I do think you have been a tad imtemperate in your discussions on Northern Cyprus. With kind regards Rhyddfrydol 22:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]