User talk:Gts-tg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Gts-tg! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Creating a user page[edit]

Thanks for responding so well to my feedback about the Richmond Palace image. May I suggest that you consider adding some text about yourself to your user page? It would be good to know something about you and what your particular interests are. Best wishes – and welcome to Wikipedia! Headhitter (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Kasta Tomb modifications[edit]

Hello, please have a look at Kasta Tomb article talk page here: Talk:Kasta_Tomb which debates your last modifications. Pluto is not just the Roman name of Hades, Pluto is also a Greek mythological name, like Hades. Thanks! Vincent Lextrait (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Philotas + Philotas[edit]

We have one article about Parmenion's son, named Philotas, and one about his father: Philotas (father of Parmenion). Please revert the latter back to the version which is consistent with the title. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will revert it back for the purposes of consistency, but this article has to be merged with Philotas, son of Parmenion, and then deleted entirely, as it is nonsensical. Thanks Gts-tg (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Not all that nonsensical. At least it's in accordance with this source. Favonian (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Good point about the source, but I can say that it is wrong and has a mixup. The original sources(i.e. Diodorus Siculus) state clearly the kinship between Parmenion, Philotas, and Philotas's sons. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Parmenion's father(if his name was also Philotas) to be with Alexander, as Parmenion was quite old himself and an old general of Phillip II. Gts-tg (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry to belabor the point, but this page from the same source indicates that Asander was indeed the brother of Parmenion, not his grandson. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
But it doesn't say in our article (or the source) that Old Philotas was with Alexander. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Good point as well, I think the problematic part is the text saying It appears that he had two other brothers, Asander and Agathon when in fact Asander and Agathon are the sons of Philotas junior, son of Parmenion. So it implies that the particular Philotas (senior) was the one with Alexander. Gts-tg (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Also if you check the link for Agathon in the article, it links over to Agathon (son of Philotas), while in the main text it says it was his brother Gts-tg (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, the links in our articles are all over the place – and confound the Greeks for their habit of recycling names! I believe my remarks above concerning Asander has some bearing on this. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah tell me about it, I had so much trouble trying to convince my spouse to name our son a Greek name after my dad. Based on your feedback, I think it may be valid to have the article as Parmenion's father, but the info on Asander and Agathon is highly suspicious to me and appears to be wrong. In fact I came over to this article by following a link from the article about Asander (fixed the link there to Parmenion proper) Gts-tg (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll end up appearing rude as well as stubborn. :( However, I do think that the Asander of our article was indeed Parmenion's brother. On the other hand, my supper is somewhat overdue, so I'll have to excuse myself. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah getting hungry too, perhaps it's time for others to put their input forward. Ta Gts-tg (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greeks in Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyrene. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greeks in Malta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Periplus svg[edit]

Have you read the Periplus? You posted this svg where the ports in Northern Somalia were supposedly under the control of Himyar and so on but instead it was only the Southern ports that seemed to have a South Arabian influence/ rule going. Read the Periplus itself mate:

I've read the thing (specifically pertaining to the Horn of Africa) more times than I can count and it clearly states that ports like "Mosylon" , "Opone" & "Avalites" were ruled by independent chieftains. Go to page 27 on the Periplus "This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief." Taken right of the bloody book you shared an alternative illustration for. If you made that map (all things considered, it's superior to the other one in some senses and looks better) edit that bit and just list the ports as "independent". Otherwise you're sharing inaccurate information and I will report this to an admin. Sorry if I seem a bit snippy... It's my home region and all. Awale-Abdi (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Heck, here's another translation (by William H. Schoff) shared by a guy who used to edit the Periplus page (he shared in its talk page in the "Could Rhapta have been in modern-day Mozambique?" section):

Same line: is shared about the "Berber country" that stretches from Avalites to Opone in Northern Somalia: "This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief." Map's completely wrong in listing those ports (Avalites to Opone) as outer ports of sorts controlled by Himyar and other South Arabian polities. The first link/ book is more than legitimate enough but I shared that just to show you that it's not just that particular translation. Awale-Abdi (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Awale-Abdi, thanks for your feedback. I will have a look at the points and links you mentioned and make any amendments if needed, at some point within the following few days. I have read the Periplous in it's original Hellenistic Koine text, but it is plausible that a mistake exists in the map. On a general note, I need to ask you to try to relax and assume good faith when first contacting other editors about something you want to raise. Other than this, I am happy you find the map better looking and easier to read through, I'll let you know once I have an updated English version, and if all good, we can reinstate the map in the related articles Gts-tg (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I apologize for getting worked up... It was uncalled for but yeah. It's a very good looking map and it's cool that it's an svg. The only incorrect bit in it is that it makes the northern ports in Somalia look like South Arabian ruled areas when the Periplus clearly says the region was rather independent (the south was ruled by outside forces though, that seems clear) If you just add an "independent polity" category and colour those cities as such-> it's a great map, man. I'm not honestly a regular editor btw. Just add a few things from time to time. Have a nice day (or night) :-) Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


Awale asked me to take a look. The newer map has some merits, imho. It's presentation is neat, aesthetically appealing, and easier to read than the older map. That said, it does appear to misrepresent the Periplus in several places, though this was likely an oversight. For one thing, the Periplus indicates that Berbers inhabited all of Northeast Africa (i.e. in both the Horn & Nile Valley), not just the Horn as the newer map appears to suggest (the older one doesn't). As Awale points out, the Periplus also notes that Malao, Mundus, and the other northern ports were governed by independent Berber polities. These in turn had a sort of loose suzerainty relationship with the Aksumites under King Zoskales, who was centered at Adulis. It is Sarapion, Nikon, and the other entrepots further south along the Azanian coast that were remotedly administered through Muza (present-day Mocha) by order of King Charabael, the then ruler of both the Himyarite and Sabaean kingdoms. If these specific points can be adjusted, the newer map may be worth salvaging. Otherwise, the older map should indeed remain. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Awale-Abdi and Middayexpress thank you both for your observations. I did have a further look and it looks like there was a mistake, and it was due to the exact point that Middayexpress pointed out, instead of having the Azanian ports under Charibael I had the northern ports in the Horn. As for the Berbers only being available in the Horn and not Northeast Africa in general, this was an oversight that has also been corrected. Have a look at and let me know if you think this covers the above(make sure to refresh/clear cache if needed). Should it be ok, I will also update the Greek version of the map and then proceed to restore the map in the respective articles. Gts-tg (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that map is great then. If I had to nit pick; the text in Sudan that says "Berbers" is barely noticeable, I only noticed it was there because you pointed its presence out tbh. Otherwise-> good map. I'd add it as soon as possible if I were you. Take care, man. Awale-Abdi (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The map looks great now, Gts-tg. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind also fixing the locations of Nikon and Sarapion? Sarapion is Mogadishu while Nikon is Barawe. AcidSnow (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
User:AcidSnow done. Thanks everyone for your feedback! Gts-tg (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Barawe is acutely much closer to Mogadishu than that though. AcidSnow (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
AcidSnow I cross compared positions with Google Maps for Barawe and Mogadishu and moved according to these and according to river endpoints. But I will keep the change in mind when I update again Gts-tg (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Also the Alavites were Zeila, AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, there are some mistakes in the map which were the same as the previous map. For example, Opone is supposed to be in Hafun, the peninsula between Mosylon and Tave. Malao is supposed to be in Berbera which is situated nearer to Mundus on the map and Mundus a bit further East where Maydh is supposed to be. Thanks. 26oo (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Any specific section? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I've listed some specifics -including sections- at Talk:Greek_bailout_referendum,_2015#POV_check. Are any further details needed? Gts-tg (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


What are you talking about? I removed the tag and opened the conversation at Talk:Zourafa in consecutive edits: 15:44, 21 July 2015‎ and 15:56, 21 July 2015. "Without talking first" - how dare you? You are either deliberately misrepresenting my edits or you are not competent to read the edit history. Which is it? Don't call me a wikilawyer again - read our policy on WP:NPA, if you don't understand why. I have now pointed out to you twice that the English article is not a translation of the Greek and the original author has just confirmed that. You owe Alakzi an apology. --RexxS (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please watch your conduct. Discussion is at Talk:Zourafa. Gts-tg (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
My conduct is fine - you need to be worrying about your own tendentious editing and edit-warring against two other editors. Talk:Zourafa is for discussing improvements to the Zourafa article. This page is for discussing your behaviour. Do you understand that now? --RexxS (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No RexxS, this page is not for discussing user behaviors, it is for contacting me, and if you continue this harassment we will then have a new issue altogether. With regards to edit warring, it is just you, and I have opened a dispute resolution request to discuss what is needed. I do not wish for you to continue contacting me here, not in this manner. Any subsequent follow ups you make in this page and are of similar nature (i.e. flaming), will be removed, and should you continue doing so anyway, you will be reported for making personal attacks. Gts-tg (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep it short: what I read the other day and liked was "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me understand[edit]

I don't get why you want to use a tag about "copy" when nothing was copied, very simple. - We should attribute when we copy, is my understanding. I am often copied without attribution and don't like it too much. But here, nothing was copied, not even translated. - It happened to me before that I wrote an article in English, wanted to translate it to German, and only then noticed it was already there in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt thanks for contacting, the reason for the tag, is because the way I see it the tag is not about having a copy of an article, but about an article incorporating info from another article. That is to say, that the tag is simply a nod towards the initial point of information that was used a stepping stone/scaffolding for creating the en article. Should the en article differ greatly from the el one, there wouldn't be a need for the courtesy of the nod. In all honesty, if it was simply a case about some article I wrote in a couple of hours or translated from elsewhere, I wouldn't even have bothered with such a triviality. In the particular case though I did spent quite a lot of time collecting the sources etc in order to bring into light a little known area of the world. I was actually quite happy to see the en article been created, and reading through it I saw that it was based off the el one. So I thought it was reasonable and trouble free to simply include this nod as described above via use of the tag. That was it, and it shouldn't have been blown out of proportion, but I really got rubbed the wrong way by one of the users and I do not like opinions being enforced on me just because someone else thinks their view is the gospel and makes personal remarks in order to enforce their view. However the other members of the community have also participated with regards to the issue at hand and expressed their view, so consensus is consensus and I will have to roll with it even if I do not agree. Gts-tg (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand that, but still: "copy" means copy, and anything rephrased or translated is not copied. Imagine an article like Athens and the many tags from many other-languages, with one item first in French, another in Swedish ... - I recommend that instead of a tag - which obviously people understand differently - go and put a note on the next article: "Dear so-and-so, it's a pleasure for me that the English Wikipedia has now an article on this subject on which I worked on the Greek Wikipedia." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Disengage please[edit]

Hi, Gts-tg. I've just advised RexxS to disengage from further discussion with you, and I urge you to do the same with regard to him. The issue of the tag at Talk:Zourafa seems to be resolved, now that you have resigned yourself to consensus[1] (thank you for that) and agreed to close the Dispute Resolution — there's no longer a dispute, anyway. You have made some accusations and personal attacks against RexxS; I don't quite understand why, but obviously he rubbed you the wrong way somehow. Anyway, the way you talk to, and about, RexxS needs to stop. If I should see more of it, you may be sanctioned for personal attacks. My advice is that you don't talk about or to RexxS at all going forward. After all, there's nothing more to talk about, is there? Bishonen | talk 14:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: yes I want to disengage, this is what I have been asking, however it does not look like the other user has received a disengage request and actually continues with mockery at User_talk:RexxS#Thank_you. Why? The way I talk about him needs to stop? Have you actually read what he has been saying about me and how he has been flaming all along? You didn't even give a notice to the other user, just to keep the balance, since you are not certain of what has happened. Sorry but I have now acquired an extremely bad taste of en:wiki and do wish to proceed further either via contributions or otherwise. Do as you feel and understand, and good luck on your future time spent on Wikipedia. Gts-tg (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
RexxS came to my page, I suppose because I've been placing a couple of topic bans recently, and I asked him to disengage one minute before I asked you. You think a "notice" has some special power? Because I don't. I think RexxS will listen to me better, if anything, when I tell him something in response to a question he asked me. Of course I read all the exchanges between the two of you before commenting; I'd be a poor excuse for an admin if I didn't. And in my opinion you have been the ruder of the two. I'll look for diffs if you insist, but I'd rather not. I agree RexxS should remove the mockery on his own page. (Added 14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC): Indeed, I see now that he has removed it.) Bishonen | talk 14:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen I really was going to leave this here and not deal with it anymore, really. But as you felt that you had to mention that your findings are that I was the ruder of the two, let's now go through the diffs please, and lets see what has happened. Also on notices, it's not whether they have special power or not, but whether they are balanced especially when coming from an admin who has the other party coming to his page asking for a favour and who should have been more careful on trying to keep balances on a contentious issue. Gts-tg (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I've struck my comment which might have been seen as inflammatory. I hope that we can put this behind us, and I thank you for graciously accepting the consensus. Alakzi (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, acknowledged Gts-tg (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm sorry you choose to make such demands, and so imperiously, but very well, here are the diffs I object to.

  • Accusation of wikilawyering[2]
  • RexxS "comes on way too aggressive and looks like he is looking for trouble"[3]
  • Accusation of harassment[4]
  • Accusation of flaming[5] on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, no less
  • "Too quarrelsome to have a discussion with"[6]
  • "Very poor form of conduct by RexxS not only at the talk page of the issue at hand, but even yet at this very same page, where he is removing my feedback to his claims"[7] — a potentially serious accusation, and yet RexxS had made it clear that he removed your post because you had put it in the wrong section ("his" section)[8] Your whole post there is bad-tempered and inflammatory. And your edit summary here is simply mistaken. A section entitled "Summary of dispute by X" is indeed "owned" by X, and any responses should be made in the discussion section, in this case the section named "Talk:Zourafa discussion". Don't you think that's common sense? Mind you, I don't blame you for putting it in the wrong place to begin with. Who knows how to handle those templates anyway. But restoring it in that place, and complaining in somewhat misleading terms about Rexxs's removal wasn't a good idea.
  • Accusation of "slandering"[9]
  • Accusation of "continuous slandering and flaming"[10]

(I hope you don't expect me to make a list of any intemperate diffs by RexxS too. Diff-collecting takes time, and I'm sure you can do that yourself if you want it done.) But I can well understand you got upset and annoyed at the probably unexpected resistance to your tag. Can you in your turn understand the effect your first post in the matter had, with "please discuss first"[11] directed at someone who had actually just started a discussion, 12 minutes after removing the tag? Please try to put yourself in the other guy's place. You are of course free to take any complaint about my admin conduct to a noticeboard for more eyes; WP:ANI would be the right one. But I hope you sleep on it first, and consider whether it's a good idea. Please disengage now, as everybody else is ready to. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen let's keep it short. I read what you say, and I reject your judgment and your presentation as false, as I simply find it to be completely flat out one sided, unfair and out of touch with reality, a farce. In the best case scenario a mistake, in the worst case an conscious abuse and hybris. What I see is that I had already disengaged and you engaged me back, you run a check diffs for me only and not for the other user (diff-collecting takes time), and turned a blind eye to the person that should be receiving the notices to which my defense was based. You are making a big mistake about the particular user, perhaps you will see it on your own in the future, perhaps not, or perhaps you do not care. I sure know I don't care myself now any longer about en:wiki, any further to this post. As to disengagement, the other users had already disengaged by the time you made your post, there's nothing else to talk about them, and there is no point to ask me to disengage with them any longer. The only person who maintains this engagement is you now. Please do not reply any further; I wish to bring closure to this, and to bring closure now, and I want this to be the last of my time in en:wiki without wasting any more time here in one form or another; respect this and do not follow up, either negatively, positively or as neutral. Just do the right thing and leave it here please. Gts-tg (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)