User talk:Euthymios/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Euthymios, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! •NikoSilver• 13:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Macedonian

The term Old Macedonian for Old Church Slavonic is used in the major English-language handbooks (Lunt, Schmalstieg, Nandris, IIRC Gardiner too), since Sts. Cyril and Methodius were from (Greek) Macedonia and OCS is based on the vernacular of the Slavs around Thessalonica. The term and the scholars who use it (in some cases preceding 1945) are unconnected to contemporary polemic about the Republic of Macedonia. Please do not remove it from Old Church Slavonic, it's a perfectly good scholarly term and I hate to see it dragged into the fight over Macedonian identity. CRCulver 10:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left the message here because on the Talk page for one of the Macedonian articles you said that the name might be removed from here. Only after I left the message did I see that you even restored it after Francis Tyer's deletion, for which I thank you. And I don't treat Bg. and Gr. editors as harbingers of doom here at all. CRCulver 11:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love Greeks <3

:)

You can quote me on that. I've been to Greece more times than the Republic of Macedonia, and I've been to the Macedonia in Greece too. I like the people, the food, the music, the dri nks. What made you think I hated Greeks? :( - Francis Tyers · 14:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... let's see... - your edits of course! ;-) --Euthymios 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you Telex

You pathetic, goat-herder, sandal wearing, Greek-wannabe Albanian? Greier 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Greiere. I missed you :-D --Euthymios 18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Khoi khoi 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed me? Ohh really???... :) Greier 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da, mi-e dor de tine cand nu esti aici :-) --Euthymios 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, ai dat-o pe română acum? Nu mai vrei elenizare? Greier 18:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Greier, I'm busy serving Romanian interests at meta [1]. Maybe you would like to help (dhe Grekët edhe Arvanitët do të ndihmojnë ty).--Euthymios 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, already trying [2]. Anyway, tell me, from where do you know those phrases in Romanian? Greier 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be mo:user:Vizitator din versiunea engleza [3] at Moldavian Wikipedia, until I was permabanned (together with my good friend Bonaparte) by an unsympathetic admin [4]. I couldn't say much, but it was good practice for my Romanian which I'm certain improved over my time there. Last time I rated my Romanian, I was ro-0,5 (see ro:user:Telex). Maybe I have reached ro-1 now.--Euthymios 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I`m learning Greek. I completely understand the alphabet, and I know a pretty good number of words. Know thy enemy, you know... Kalinichta, my Albanian skirt-wearing, cheese smelling friend! Greier 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bine. BTW ai votat aici?--Euthymios 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (it's the same situation for Russians and Romanians for the Moldavian Wikipedia except the roles are reversed)[reply]

Da, just voted Greier 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are more benevolent than other Romanian users (Bonaparte seemed to have wanted revenge from the Russian users for their stance regarding mowiki - see his vote and Mikkalai's response if you like a good laugh [5]).--Euthymios 19:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

You edited an article on the grounds that: "Politis, other ethnic groups also called themselves "Macedonians"...". Up to the 20th century I am only aware of Greeks identifying themselves as Macedonian. If you know of other nations, which ones? Politis 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarians.--Euthymios 21:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria

May I ask why should be the serbian name more relevant as the serbs conquered the lands around Lerin, Kostur, Ochrid and others only once in 1350s and held them for around 30 years???? These lands have always been populated by Bulgarians and were in the borders of the Bulgarian Empire for centuries, so the Bulgarian names are MUCH more relevant than the serb ones.I know that perhaps you and many the greeks hate Bulgaria but this is only due to jealosy and fear, because we have always defeated the greek armies.

When I added in the history section of Drama, Syar and Kostur that they used to be in Bulgaria, I was surprised that this information was removed. Why???????????????

So then you want to remove the greek names of Plovdiv, Sozopol or Nessebar??? If you insist... --Gligan 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...[t]hese lands have always been populated by Bulgarians and were in the borders of the Bulgarian Empire for centuries...

Your Greater Bulgaria propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. The medieval Bulgarian Empires were about as "Bulgarian" (in the modern sense) as the Byzantine Empire was Greek :-D You also forgot to mention that some Greek cities were also part of Bulgaria during the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II - a time when countless atrocities were committed against Greek civilians. Bulgarian nationalists such as yourself of course, prefer to forget those and then complain that Greeks were the "big bad bullies"; it's called the "victim syndrome", it's especially widespread in FYROM. Face it, "Aegean Macedonia" is part of Greece due to the ethnic Greek plurality it had at the end of the Balkan Wars and because of it's ethnic Greek absolute majority now. Get over it... I've seen you spouting hate speeches against not only Greeks, but also against Serbians and Romanians. This will only make you enemies, and that's something you really don't need.--Euthymios 21:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you prefer to forget for the tens of thousands Bulgarians who were killed in what is now greek Macedonia and Western Thrace and more than 200,000 were forced to leave their homes and go to Bulgaria. In WW2 there were killed civilians, but these were killed because they sabotaged the army and in war this is treason; while the Bulgarians the greeks, serbs and romanians killed died mainly after 1918, when there used to be terror against the Bulgarian population in the victorious states from WW1, not to mention for the casualties during the Balkan Wars when your armies occupied Bulgarian territories, and by the way the Bulgarians were the majority there.

I do not want enemies but justice. For instace, Western Thrace is of no need for Greece, but for Bulgaria it is of vast importance, thus we can have harbours on the Aegean Sea, and you have many harbours there; and this would be an advantage for the Bulgarian economy, while the region's importance for Greece is minor. --Gligan 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice??? Western Thrace is inhabited by 70% Greeks, 15% Turks, 10,5% Pomaks and the rest other ethnic groups (mostly Roma/Gypsies). WTF would Bulgaria want western Thrace for??? If it's to access the Aegean Sea, they can do that freely anyway from New Year onwards when Bulgaria joins the EU. There used to be Bulgarians in Greece (both in Thrace and in Macedonia), but there were the Treaty of Neuilly population exchanges, and most of those remaining sided with Bulgarian occupation forces during WWII and committed atrocities on the Greek population. When the war was over, there were mass trials for treason against individuals like that marked with heavy sentences. There was a mass exodus of political refugees, who would later be joined by another group of political refugees after the Civil War.--Euthymios 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the treaty of Neuilly, Western Thrace was not ceded to greece, but after some time it should have been given back to Bulgaria, but greece did not fulfil its part of the agreement and never returned this territory to Bulgaria. Once more than 70% of the population were Bulgarians and now almost every bigger city in our state has a neighbourhood called "Belomorski" (Aegean) founed by refugees from Western Thrace. To my mind it is not justice to expell the majority of certain area, in this case Western Thrace. The archives in Athens where the population counts from the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries for the towns and villages in Greek Macedonia and Thrace are kept, are still NOT available (Bulgarian journalists have required these documents but your government, of course refused), (these documents might now be destroyed, who knows). I think that this proves that there is something there which differs from the official data which is presented to the Greek people; they are hiding that the majority of the population was Bulgarian.

However, I know that we cannot solve this problem here, so I would like to receive an answer of this question: In the history sections of the towns in Northern Greece in which I added that they were Bulgarian, why this information which is undoubtedly true is removed??? And why do you always remove the Bulgarian names? (I do not mean only you but the greeks as a whole). Now what do you want: to create a section "names" in the Plovdiv article, for instance and to move the greek and the other names there??? I think that if this is applied for the towns of greece, it would be fair to apply them in Bulgaria either. --Gligan 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm sick of people telling me who the majority in western Thrace was. You claim it was Bulgarian and Turks claim it was Turkish (see also Republic of Gumuljina, which had an undoubtedly Turkish character). Who should I believe? Neither side has provided much evidence to substantiate either claim. All we know now is that the overwhelming majority in the region today are Greeks who want to remain part of Greece. Land is not some lifeless substance - the opinion of the people who live there should determine the form of government. Greeks formed the majority in Izmir in Turkey until the 1910s, until they were forcefully expelled by the Turks. Greeks also formed the majority in parts of Pontus in Turkey until they were genocided by the Turks. Germans once formed the majority (90%) in Sudetenland which was part of the then Czechoslovakia - where are they today, what has happened to them? Ridiculous chauvinist territorial claims to neighboring states based on alleged prior ethnic composition will never materialize. Bulgaria can have western Thrace, when Greeks regain Constantinople (i.e. never).

Finally, regarding Plovdiv, feel free to move all unofficial names to a name section if you want. In case you're wondering why the Greek name is there, it's due to the fact that it was part of what the Popes and Franks used to refer to as the Imperium Græcorum (Latin for "Empire of the Greeks"), where the Greek language was the official language.--Euthymios 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I provide you proves, as they are in the archives in Athens and may now be even destroyed don't you read what I was written above? And what will you say about the Aegean neighbourhoods in our cities- that these people were forced by our government to move there from Northern Bulgaria let's say, and pretend that they were coming from Westrn Thrace and thus Bulgaria to lay claims to this territory?! I do not think so.

You still avoid to answer why do you remove all things related to Bulgaria in the history sections of your towns. Please, answer. Kostur, Lerin or Drama were part of what the westerns and the byzantines was refered to as the Empire of the Bulgarians. --Gligan 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia's UN temporary name

Macedonia was accepted by th UN organization like "the former yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", you can check that former and yugoslav are with small letters --Ditirambo 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not -- "yugoslav" with a small "y" is not correct in the English language. You do have a point about the "former" though.--Euthymios 21:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the note, Euthymios. Sometimes I have to point these things out, when a user's POV becomes so obvious. (Although, I think my reaction was a bit unprofessional and reactionary; just being human though.) Cheers.Serouj 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation board launched

A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are trying to do?

What you do is just WP:STALK. You may be banned for this reason. E104421 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason you WP:STALKed User:Tajik - I'm just reverting your WP:POINT edits. Also, I disagree with your edits - I think they are biased...--Euthymios 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, these articles are all in my watchlist, but you followed all my recent edits. You already admitted. You'd better to use the talk page first. E104421 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you had better use the talk page first. What did you revert Tajik's edit to the Sultanate of Rum article for? Tell me, I'm genuinely interested to know, because it's hard for me to assume good faith here. I wonder who will be the one to get blocked around here. You may have gotten away with sockpuppetry, but you will not get away with everything else...--Euthymios 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (also, many of those articles were on my watchlist as well)[reply]

Ok. I'll explain the difference. For the Sultanate of Rum the difference is here [[6]], if you check Britannica its written as Ala ad-Din Kay Qubadh. For The Book of One Thousand and One Nights and the Kebab articles, the Arabic was removed, i replaced back. For the Ghaznavid Empire, the Turkish spelling which was removed is replaced back. In wikipedia, related spelling are usually given. For the other, Azerbaijan never Turkized they were already so. I think, you never checked the differences in the articles but just reverted serially from my contribution list. This is stalking. You already accepted. What i did is just putting the removed information back. Note: Sockpuppetry allegations disproven! E104421 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right... related spellings must be there, but whether the ones you added related is a different question? "Azerbaijan never Turkized they were already so" - that's one of two POVs (as I'm sure you are well aware). If you have a problem, with Ala ad-Din Kay Qubadh; propose a rename. That I was not acting maliciously can be demonstrated that i skipped your edit to List of Mughal emperors, which was were you cited a source. Whether you were acting maliciously is sill an open question. As for the socks, LOL :-D --Euthymios 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@ E104421: Stop pretending. The correct spelling of his name is Alā ud-Dīn Kay-Kubād - the first part of the name is Arabic (Alā ud-Dīn, "of noble faith"), the second part is Persian (Kay-Kubād, "King Kubād", a legendary Persian hero of the epic). The spelling Qubādh is an Arabic corruption. the same goes to the Turkish spelling.

As for "1001 Nights", some anon user had added the "Arabic folktale" POV to the article. The Sassanian collection "Hazār Afsānah" did not have any Arabic influence. It was a Persian collection of mostly Indian stories, with some Iranian folktales added to them. The modern "1001 Nights" is a later corruption, although certain Iranian core-stories are preserved (Shahryār & Shahzād, Sindbād, etc ...)

What you are doing is deffinitly not "good faith" anymore.

And I have also reverted your POV in the White Huns article. I'd also like to know why you have added a Turkish spelling to the Ghaznavids article?! The Ghaznavids were not Turks, they were not Oghuz, they did not consider themselvs Turkic, and they did not speak a word Oghuz Turkic! What you are doing is nationalistic motivated POV and you know that!

@ Euthymios: thanks for your help.

Tājik 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Euthymios, as you can clearly see from impoliteness above, what i'm doing is ok. For the Ala ad-Din Kay Qubadh, see here its from Britannica see here[7]. For the Mughal Emperors, see the related entries from Britannica here [8]. If any questions, you can post me a message. E104421 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided by Bagramyan is not related with the context of the article, but related with other wiki articles. I already pointed out in the edit summary. These would be more suitable. I recommend you to read WP:STALK. Regards. E104421 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey people, just do me two favours. First, stop those stalking accusations, all of you. Okay, you've all been editing a group of articles on related spelling issues and following each other around. That's not stalking. Second, please stop a moment before you enter into yet another silly revert war about spellings. Always remember: (1) sole criterion for naming in WP is common English usage; (2) Historic Perso-Arabic names can have more than one correct rendering. If you want a philologically correct transliteration, ask an expert. As long as people aren't even clear about whether "Ala-" and "Allah-" are the same name (AFAIK, they are not), or whether the distinction between "-ad-" and "-ud-" is significant (it is not), there's really not much sense in quibbling over "k" and "q". Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euthymios and E104421 what you are doing is very much looks like stalking. You appear to jump into a revert war on the articles that you did not have previous interest of just to annoy or harass your opponents. Please do not do it again or I will block you (both of you if needed). Alex Bakharev 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

Please do not reinstate edits by banned users. Khoi khoi 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reinstating an edit by a banned user. I am making a legitimate edit in my own right. That'll be a pathetic excuse for reverting me if that's what you do ;-) --Euthymios 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not joking Euthymios. I will block you if you do it again. Khoi khoi 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're restricting my editing capacity with unauthorised threats? I hear RFC bells ringing.--Euthymios 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what the policy says: users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing. I view those edits as NPOV - if you disagree, you'll have to justfy it and not threaten.--Euthymios 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Transnistrian page is a senstive and complex one where the editors work tirelessly on their talk page to reach compromises. The current intro was debated and discussed by its five most prominent experts while the page was locked. A compromised intro was brokered between the sides by a nuetral editor respected by all. It was agreed. He made the edit to the intro but when the page reopened two days ago but an edit war broke out by people that are not normally working on that page. The intro we must use is the negotiated one. Please be very sensitive to this as this is a very heated and delicate topic. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006.

Ah

Guilt tripping me, Euthymios? ;-) WP:HOAX is not a CSD, so you should go to AfD or prod it. I'm not sure which. BTW, check out my contributions...guess who I'm turning into? Khoi khoi 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for protecting my user page. Looks like I can't even retire in peace. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome article

Ushtria Çlirimtare e Çamërisë is the Freedom Fighting Group that will liberate Çamëria from the greek occupation.

Khoi khoi 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More propaganda for Wikipedia (I've just been clearing up Kaltsef's crap)? The existence of that organization is a myth, and do you know why? Çamëria (Southern Epirus) has a population of 350,000 and according to the European Commission sponsored euromosaic report on linguistic diversity within the EU, there are 100 - 150 Çam Albanians still in Greece. That is hardly enough to substantiate a realistic territorial claim. Greeks have more chance of annexing Northern Epirus than the Albanians southern. Why don't I start an article for an organization existing only in my imagination Apeleftherotikos Stratos Voriu Ipiru (Liberation Army of Northern Epirus) ;-) --Euthymios 12:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incident at Tarlis

What is your objection to this article? Haber 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For starters because it's unsourced, that source does not exist (there has been a search for it, ask User:NikoSilver for details) and is 100% unverifiable and I am entitled to remove it per WP:V. For further reading, I suggest Jimbo's views on the issue of using tags to make up for sources [9]. Why don't I fabricate sources and then write about the time when the Greeks conquered Mexico? Learn who you're dealing with, Kaltsef, a known vandal-troll (check this edit of his for an example).--Euthymios 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have been able to find another source, though it's from a rather obscure magazine. However it claims that this incident was discussed at the League of Nations, so there should be a record of it somewhere. My concern is that there appears to be some inconsistency in the treatment of accusations of war crimes. For example, Allied war crimes during World War II is basically a showcase for revisionist claims invented years after the war. Please don't think that I'm anti-Greek. I am not Greek myself, but I have many Greek friends and have been to Greece. I think in the scheme of history, the Greeks have been the good guys most of the time. However anyone can come along on Wikipedia and pick out a few missteps, amplify and distort them, and it becomes an article. Surely this incident took place during a chaotic period, crazy things were happening on all sides, and we'll never know exactly what happened. But imagine if this incident were about Israel or the United States. There is no way you'd get away with deleting the article and redirecting it to a treaty, no matter how shaky the references were. If you still choose to keep it deleted I'm ok with that but I would hope you apply the same rigorous standards across the board. Haber 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Αργήσαμεν ολίγον ίνα λάβομεν την δευτέραν επιστολήν, δι' αυτό, η αναστροφή μας επέτυχεν εις το μέσον. LOL:) Hectorian 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello and thank you very much for your support! I greatly appreciate it. Biruitorul 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaltsef

I was thinking of banning him after lunch, should I talk to Aldux about it first? I'm not sure if it's necessary to bring it up at WP:AN/I (it's pretty obvious). As for a range block, are you sure it wouldn't result in col. damage? Khoi khoi 21:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an e-mail to Aldux about that with the concern of preventing just that. However, check your e-mail...--Euthymios 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarlis - Sèvres

Please, do not redirect Tarlis content forks to the Treaty of Sèvres. The word "Tarlis" does not even show up in that page. Just mark the pages with {{delete|content fork to [[Tarlis incident]]}}. User:Mike Rosoft or another administrater will take care of this. Andreas ^(T) 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaltsef blocked indefinitely

After having to block Tureg2 (talk · contribs), Tureg3 (talk · contribs), and UOGORTH (talk · contribs) tonight, reverting userpage vandalism, etc. - I have honestly had enough of this user. Therefore, I have decided to be bold and ban him myself. Please let me know if there are any objections. Khoi khoi 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaltsef and Bulgarian

Eythymio, I think that manipulating another user's user page is not a good idea. You might have good reasons for assuming that Kaltsef does not read Bulgarian. However, it is up to him/her to declare this on his/her talk page. Also, his/her language skills are irrelevant for the appropriateness of his edits. Moreover, User:XX-0 templates should not be used except for the language or the site, in this case, English. Remember that, a good cause can only be promoted with good arguments. If you start using questionable methods against trolls, you do not only incite others to questioning your credibility, but also that of other editors like myself. Andreas ^(T) 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's a banned user, he cannot edit his userpage. If you see Wikipedia:Babel, the XX-0 templates are for languages that a user does not know but may be expected to know (they give the example of being from Belgium and not knowing any French). In this case, when a user goes around declaring as a Bulgarian minority in Greece, then naturally, you'd expect him to have some command of the language (turns out he doesn't). Someone may try to reason with him in his "mother tongue Bulgarian", but that would be a waste of time. I'm trying to prevent that... What I'm trying to do is serve a benevolent purpose.--Euthymios 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he is a banned user, then changing his user page is even less appropriate because he cannot defend himself. Andreas ^(T) 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Dealings with banned users :

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying."

Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them." Andreas ^(T) 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. In that case, adding the "banned" and "sockpuppeteer" tags are also "mocking" - he already has expressed displeasure to them.--Euthymios 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit again to the state before the banning occurred. Banning a user is done according to WP policy and is a legitimate means of preventing disturbing behaviour. The sockpuppeteer tag was put there before the banning occurred. The policy says clearly that once a ban is effective, we are not allowed to change anything that is directly connected to the user, not his user page and not his talk page. I really do not feel comfortable talking like a school teacher here, but this is important to me. Cheers Andreas ^(T) 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiladhi ap oti katava i sizitisi telyoni edho kye tora? I trehusa ekdhosi pos su fenete?--Euthymios 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Συμφωνώ με την έκδοση του Aldux. Andreas ^(T) 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

None needed. İzmir is Իզմիր. Pronounced and written the same way.--Eupator 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage protected

Hope you don't mind. Khoi khoi 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

Cool userboxes you added there Thymio. In certain window widths they appear truncated and intermingle with one another though (I'm using IE now). Care to reformat? Niko Silver 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I'm afraid I'm pretty bad with this kind of thing, it's not that bad, is it? Feel free to try fixing it yourself if you like (or even adding a few more...).--Euthymios 11:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is that bad when it happens. All userbox texts are truncated since the userboxes appear in one column with half width each. I noticed it is probably a WP:POPUPs bug, since it happens exactly when my mouse cursor hits your left image below, and the image popup pops up (popidipoop, pap pap). If it pops up to anyone else, I guess you'll have to fix it somehow. Niko Silver 11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see what I can do. I may take them out of the table and list them in a section or something, we'll see...--Euthymios 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better now?--Euthymios 11:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. You might also want to help me out in tagging all those vandalizing IP's by adding {{subst:sock|Kaltsef}}. This cat can help blocking them to prevent further damage. Niko Silver 11:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he's been busy. If we wanted to significantly reduce the volume of trolling we could range block 85.74/ and 87.202/. Then it's bye-bye Kaltsef... We should ask at the village pump about it.--Euthymios 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Could you do it? I am not familiar with the process. Also, you might want to check this out. (Yay!

) Niko Silver 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great!--Euthymios 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit section to see why it isn't such a good idea to subst smileys... Niko Silver 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

97% of the people that live in the Republic of Transnistria, which is listed as an unrecognized country on wikipedia do not support your view that it is a region of Moldova. The current intro while hard to live with at least dealt with both points of view, the revert you made is clearly unacceptable to Transnistrians. Mark us street 18:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euthymios, yes, it is true that de facto status depends on the observers. However, Wikipedia has already dealt with this issue numerous times before. We have a standard. See List of countries and List of sovereign states as well as List of unrecognized countries. Transnistria is - on all these lists - an unrecognized country, de facto. Some observers (a minority) may disagree. If that is the case, do not change a single article on Wikipedia. Convince other editors that everything should be changed. - Mauco 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care about Mauco's standards - we should have higher standards in Wikipedia. Mark us street is only a propagandist of Transnistrian regime, he is editor of "Tiraspol Times" (he claim is a newspaper but is only a website), well-known for the falacies he is using.--MariusM 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Thanks for your support in Afghanistan. However, please keep cool and make sure that you do not stalk on others. Thanks.

With regards

Tājik 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe maps

Hello. I'm noticing that you're reverting my edits to the articles for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia_(country). In my view, there's no good reason not to be using the same map template as is used in the articles for all non-European countries. The original maps I restored show the nations larger and within their own neighborhood, rather than small and toward the edge with Europe as the focal point. I don't understand how you can describe the maps you're putting up as "clearer." Could you explain your reasoning please? And, also, describing me as a "possible sock" seems to be an inexplicable personal attack, I'm sorry to say. Adlerschloß 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Talk:Georgia (country). My position is basically that if we have maps of a better quality, then we should use those. Also, calling you a sock is not an "inexplicable personal attack", it's a reasonable suspicion considering the recent troll attacks those articles have suffered.--Euthymios 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your suggestion that I am said "troll." Making this accusation is a personal attack, and I think the reasoning behind the changes I was making was clear and far from "troll" behavior. I don't know anything about the edits you're referring to and have only noticed this issue in recent days. Please do not air baseless accusations in an attempt to prejudice other users against me again.

When you mention "better quality," is it resolution that you're referring to? My opinion is simply that there should be one standard format for the maps in all nation-state articles. One standard for the entire rest of the world and another for Europe seems odd and arbitrary to me. Also, could you please explain why Turkey has the old-style map while the Caucasus nations do not? Was a "better quality" version never created for Turkey? If not, why not? Adlerschloß 21:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to by whining about personal attacks I never made against you (Adlerschloß) on my talkpage, then two things: either you are a sock of the users the accusation was directed against in which case stop editing my talkpage, or you have problems in which case again, please stop editing my talkpage. As for the map, better quality means better quality, namely more precise borders, inclusion of rivers etc. Last time I checked there was such a map for Turkey although it was of the shaded variety which showed Turkey as part of Europe as distinct from Asia, I don't know if you would like me to restore it...--Euthymios 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you directly referred to me as a "sock": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&diff=91651522&oldid=91651292

I'm not sure how you can claim this is not a personal attack. There you directly accused me of violating Wikipedia's code of conduct and of being a "sock" of another user I have no knowledge about who apparently engaged in bad behavior. I see no ambiguity to the personal attack you made in that edit summary and I would appreciate an apology. Adlerschloß 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called you a "sock", in your comment of 21:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC) you were complaining about me allegedly calling you "troll". Last time I checked "sock" ≠ "troll". Anyway, even my seemingly endless patience has its limits, please clear off.--Euthymios 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "troll" and "sock" comments seem, actually, to be referring to the exact same behavior you're falsely accusing me of, being the "sock" of a previous user who made "troll attacks." You in fact did make a baseless and ignorant personal attack against me, which I had believed was supposed to be a big no-no on here, at least among civil users. I have seen only anger from you so far, nothing at all like patience. Again, I'd appreciate an apology for what it seems you've now stopped denying was, in fact, a personal attack against me. If I made a personal attack like yours (which, as I'm sure you know, is not allowed here), I would hope the user I unfairly attacked would be as kind as I'm being to you by politely pointing out the error and requesting an apology. Adlerschloß 21:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]