User talk:Avionics1980

Welcome

Hello Avionics1980, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

Learn the basics by reading the introduction and taking the tutorial.
Remember to sign messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically insert your username and the date.
Enjoy editing to improve articles, but try to leave an edit summary to explain what you are doing.
Create your first article using the Article Wizard to help avoid common mistakes, which may lead to article deletion.
Although you don't need to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, try to keep to the core principles and basic guidelines.
When dealing with fellow Wikipedians, please remain polite, solve problems calmly, and remember that no-one is out to get you.
Get involved with the community by joining a WikiProject.
Make any test edits in the sandbox or click here and create a sandbox of your own.
If you are having difficulty, consider finding a mentor to give you more personal advice.
If in doubt, be bold. If you make a mistake, it can easily be reverted.

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Bergama worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Van worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing information is vandalism

Removing information from articles is vandalism: removing information ie. [1], [2], [3] and [4].

Read also the note that I left you in your discussion page in el.wikipedia: Συζήτηση_χρήστη:Avionics1980..

Ggia (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion about these inverts: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#removing_of_names_in_Turkish_in_Greek_cities_of_Thrace_where_the_Turkish_and_Pomak_minority.. Ggia (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hallo again.. read the above discussion and also read the rules for names: WP:NCGN. If you have more questions or objections, before alerting these articles please discuss in the corresponding talk pages or the discussion above. Ggia (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Developed country

Please pay attention to the following facts:

The UN has 192 members. Nevertheless, the Economist decided to rank 111 members only, while Newsweek decided to rank 100 countries only.

Neither Economist, nor Newsweek, have ranked four tiny countries classified as "developed" by CIA: Andorra, Liechtenstein (both have a very high HDI), San Mrino (classified as "advanced" by IMF) and Monaco. Furthermore: neither Economist, nor Newsweek, have ranked tiny Brunei, having a very high HDI (0.920). Furthermore: neither Economist, nor Newsweek, have ranked six tiny countries having a high HDI: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Seychelles. If you don't complain about Economist for not ranking the four tiny developed countries mentioned above, and for not ranking tiny Brunei (whose HDI is very high), and for not ranking the other six high HDI tiny countries mentioned above, then you shouldn't complain about Newsweek for not ranking tiny (developed) Iceland (whose HDI is very high).

Econonist has not ranked a high HDI country - which is ranked by Newsweek as the 50th country: Cuba (whose high HDI is 0.863). Furthermore, Economist has not ranked four Medium HDI countries - which are ranked by Newsweek: Yemen, Madagascar, Kenya and Cameroon. If you don't complain about Economist for not ranking that high HDI country (Cuba), neither for not ranking four medium HDI countries, although all the five are ranked by Newsweek, then you shouldn't complain about Newsweek for not ranking tiny Iceland.

Iceland is not included in a few indices, due to its smallness (its population being less than 400,000). For example, see: MSCI Developed Market list (being the best known Index for classifying markets by the extent of development), and see also: FTSE Developed Market list. Being a tiny country - has nothing to do with the distinction you've made - between "developed market" lists - and "quality of life" country lists.

Newsweek doesn't rank tiny countries (whose population is less than 1 million). Therefore, it doesn't rank: Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Brunei, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint lucia, and Seychelles, just as Economist doesn't rank them, although all of them - are high HDI countries (the first four being very high HDI developed countries). That's why Newsweek doesn't rank some other very high HDI tiny countries (whose population is less than 1 million) ranked by Economist: Iceland, Cyprus and Malta, and doesn't rank some other high HDI tiny countries (whose population is less than 1 million) ranked by Economist: Bahrain, Barbados, Montenegro, Trinidad and Tobago. The only exception is Luxembourg, being a tiny country ranked in Newsweek's index, because Luxembourg consitutes one political entity along with Belgium (being a big country), that is called Benelux. Some other high HDI countries (Libya, and four of the former Yugoslavia countries) are not ranked in the first 100 countries of Newsweek's index, for the same reason for which Cuba (whose HDI is also high) is not ranked in the first 111 countries of Economist's index.

Both Economist and Newsweek are considered "reliable" sources in Wikipedia, neither of them being considered "flawed" in Wikipedia, unless you prove that either of them is.

Economist's index is very old, of 2005, while Newsweek's index is updated, as of 2010. According to Wikipedia guidelines, an old reliable index (e.g. of 2005) shouldn't be used in Wikipedia when an updated reliable index (e.g. as of 2010) is available.

If you insist on preferring an old (reliable) index to an updated (reliable) index, then the dispute will have to be resolved at the Mediation Cabel, and I'm sure what the resolution will be, thanks to the all points mentioned above.

Eliko (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand the following:

Throughout various articles in Wikipedia, the Economist is widely used as the reference for its "Quality of life index". And not by luck. The Economist is a specialized organization dealing with Economics while Newsweek is just a news magazine. Even if you have a look at the methodology used, you can see that the criteria are much more narrow than the criteria used by the Economist. I have given one example (Iceland) in which you insist on giving various excuses, but there are more. For instance the Newsweek list states the UK as no 14 ahead of countries like France or Austria. If you read the Economist methodology, which is by far more accurate, (even for 2005 standards supposely) you will see why it is ranked relatively low. The UK might have a relatively high GDP per capita, but a high social breakdown as well, which offsets any gains in GDP per capita. Whoever has been in the UK, France and Austria knows who has the better quality of life (and this is not the UK). Also placing Czech Republic and Slovenia (two ex-communist countries), which only recently became part of the EU, above Greece sounds a bit funny. The bottom line is that we need to focus on the SOURCE rather than the DATE. The source is always ahead of the date. Newsweek magazine might be excellent in spreading the news, but the Economist is the standard for economic and development matters. Avionics1980 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about Iceland is unacceptable, as I fully explained above, not by "excuses" (as you've called them) but rather by strong arguments (as I call them).

Economist had been widely used as the reference for its "Quality of life index" - during the last five years, because no other celebrated body had made any other (similar) thorough survey - during this long period. However, something changed last week, on 15/8/2010, when Newsweek came up with its new survey, based on 20 parameters, that are collected into 5 main groups. Let the time do its work, because one week is not sufficient for determining that Economist's index is more used in Wikipedia than Newsweek's index.

Newsweek is specialized in two fields: global politics and global economy, unless you've never read Newsweek. It is widely celebrated for its economic section, throughout the world.

According to old data of 2005 calculated by Economics, France and Austria precede UK, while according to much more updated date of 2010 calculated by Newsweek, UK precedes France and Austria. What does this prove? This just proves that something has changed during the last five years (e.g the world has experienced the global economic crisis which has influenced the Euro much more than the British pound), and/or proves that each index is based on another methodology, and/or proves both things. Wikipedia should maintain neutrality, and shouldn't prefer Ecomomist's methodology to Newsweek's methodology, nor should either one of us decide that one index is "more accurate" than the other, as long as no such decisions have been made by concensus in Wikipedia.

According to old data of 2005 calculated by Economics, Greece precedes Czech Rebublic and Slovenia, while according to much more updated date of 2010 calculated by Newsweek, Czech Rebublic and Slovenia precede Greece. What does this prove? this just proves that something has changed during the last five years (e.g. the world has experienced the global economic crisis which has influenced Greece much more than Czech Rep. and Slovenia), and/or proves that each index is based on another methodology, and/or proves both things. Wikipedia should maintain neutrality, and shouldn't prefer Ecomomist's methodology to Newsweek's methodology, nor should either one of us decide that one index is "more accurate" than the other, as long as no such decisions have been made by concensus in Wikipedia.

The bottom line is that we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines, so when we are given two equivalently reliable sources, we shouldn't use the old (reliable) 2005 index when an updated (reliable) index of 2010 is available.

Anyways, our dispute is now undergoing a mediation process at the Mediation Cabel. I think this is the only way for resolving our dispute.

Eliko (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCGN - vandalism

please read the rules WP:NCGN and stop vandalism in articles (ie [5] etc).. Ggia (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you keep violating the NCGN rules. The names are clearly relevant according to those guidelines. That bigger articles have dedicated name sections is no excuse to remove alternate from smaller articles. Kostja (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you saw in the discussion:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#removing_of_names_in_Turkish_in_Greek_cities_of_Thrace_where_the_Turkish_and_Pomak_minority.. there is the WP:NCGN. I am living also in Komotini.. in the turkish district and the turkish name is widely used. Stop vandalizing the articles.. Ggia (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Also, if (as I suspect) 77.83.219.195 is also used by you, then you have violated the restriction already. Kostja (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Developed country. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geia sou

Geia sou file, kai kalws orises sth wikipedia.

Energopoihse se parakalw to hlektroniko taxydromeio sou, einai anangkh na sou pw 2-3 pragmata. Phgaine sto "my preferences" sto pano-pano, meta phgaine sto kouti kato-kato pou sxetizetai me to hlektroniko taxydromeio, bale mia diey8hnsh pou 8eleis na lambaneis ta mynhmata, epelekse epeiseis ta prota dyo koutia, kai meta pata save. Prosexe, mhn kaneis alla rv, giati 8a se anaferoun kai ph8anon na se mplokaroun. Athenean (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean, Αυτή είναι η Αγγλική Βικιπαίδεια.

@Avionics1980, Σας παρακαλώ, μην του απαντήσει στην ελληνική γλώσσα. Σας ευχαριστώ.

Eliko (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean, Avionics1980

Αν θέλετε να αποφύγετε το μπλοκάρισμα θα πρέπει να συζητάτε τα θέματα μέσα στο wikipedia και να μην ξεκινάτε edit-wars... Ggia (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

translation in English: if you want to avoid blocking you have to discuss all the issues in wikipedia and not using edit-wars... Ggia (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geia sou file. Ok done. @Ggia: I am discussing. Actually I am doing exactly as you do. Discussing and at the same time reverting. I dont see anything different of what YOU are doing. Avionics1980 (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit-war cease-fire - discussion about alternative names in the lead of articles of greek cities.

Hello Avionics1980 (geia sou),

We have to stop edit-war and I invite you to a more general discussion about alternative names of Greek articles. I opened a new more general thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#edit-war_about_foreign_names_in_the_lead_of_Greek_cities.. Looking forward to have your contribution in this discussion. Ggia (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before applying massive changes to many articles wait for the community to response to the above discussion. I already post a response to you there. Ggia (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello

and welcome in wiki!

for example...full moon over oia? athens concert hall?(actually is private organization--you know Lambrakis--,not public such is the national theate for example) panachaiko range? and others

plus,as appears the article right now many photos are at irrelevant sections(the photos of transport are at immigration for example)

and the structure...why the empty space before demographics?

Im not against photographs, actually I want them a lot and if you see i ve decorated most of greek articles which were "empty" but...as it is "greece" right now ....1)the reader feels uncomfortable of the many photos around the text and 2)the article seems a little bit ugly

why dont you use my version adding some pictures that you like mostly from the previous? Greco22 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems?

Your attitude is easy to see throughout your remarks. You need to act more civilized on WP articles and talkpages even if you're so disturbed by your homeland's (Greece) current economic downturn. Today you've been using a sockpuppet to vandalize the Hungary lead. Please note that the International Living website may be blacklisted for now (for some weird and temporary reason), but the magazine itself and its annual index is obviously not blacklisted, and they are a major source of up-to-date information. Again, please stop threatening other users with "being reported", me included. My apologies for this message. Gregorik (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mywayyy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]