User talk:Miskin/Archive 3

Geia

LOL gi' afto. kane kati me to email sou... synexws mou leei oti den mporw na steilw... btw, everytime i look your user page a get more and more afraid:p Hectorian 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue I - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, welcome to the program! I didn't have the chance to welcome you earlier.--Yannismarou 07:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanariotes

I've commented in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece#Phanariotes and in Talk:Phanariotes. I hope we can co-exist with these people, but ςε'll see. I hope I had the time to start a thorough rewriting myself of this article, but, at this very time, I'm working on three other articles: Demosthenes, Alcibiades, El Greco. I see what I'll be able to do. Once again thanks for your participation in the project and your valuable remarks for this article. Τα λέμε!--Yannismarou 18:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, I have many rephrasings to make. I cannot possibly tell if in your system they form part of the content or part of the format. Hopefully, you will see why a statement like "Yet Islamic pride had up to that point regarded Western languages and cultures unworthy of attentions" doesn not quite qualify as a neutral, or even modern, additon. Dahn 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with the theory and all. I have asked you what you disagreed with in my edits. You did not tell me.but instead claimed all sorts of things about them. For example, in the section about supposed Islamic arrogance, I had rephrased to make the same point about relations between the Phanariotes and the Ottomans, but dodge the subjectivity. You reverted. So what if it is Britannica? One more reason to rephrase: it's copyvio. Or do you mean "the 1911 Britannica"? Because, in that case, I think there are thousands of reasons to rephrase: the same ones we use for all books written in the goddamn Edwardian age! Now, kindly read the original earlier version of mine in its entirety, and tell me what you disagreed with and why (I cannot for the love of me see what "twisted the meaning around"; I can, however, see where I have dropped the weasel words without hurting the content). Make me trust you when you claim you have a neutral stance. Dahn 01:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have misplaced one edit, I suggest that what you do is begin by copying a section of my contributions in its entirety, rephrase what you dislike, and save. I figure it is less demanding and does not involve me trying to fit sections back in their original place. I thank you in advance. Dahn 02:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: the section currently titled "Establishment of Phanariotes as a ruling class" needs a change in header, to perhaps "Phanariotes as a ruling class". As I am looking at it, in my edits or yours, it deals with much more than the establishment. It will also hopefully expand to cover their end, sice the section about the end now actually covers just Romania (either make it one section for the two countries at the end of the article, or make mention of those events in relation to Greece somewhere in or after the current "Establishment of Phanariotes as a ruling class"). Now, the other suggestion: I would avoid using "class" in the title. It is a Marxist concept in most references, so its use is risky; let me also note that the text currently provides two Greek views on the Phanariotes - one of the historians you cite says that they were primiordially Greek representatives, the other that they were mostly a class. Consider now that keeping the title would unwittingly favour the latter view. In all, I think "Phanariotes as high officials" or something of this meaning (your call what it should be) is a good rephrasing. Dahn 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm glad we managed to reach a mutually acceptable solution, we could remove the tags now. I should retire for now, I'll expand the second section at a later stage. Regards. Miskin 02:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other things which need rephrasing, all of them, I would say, having to do with style. I propose you let me go through them edit by edit, allow me to explain the reasons for them in edit summaries, and see if you agree with them, and propose how I should rephrase something you disagree with (in case you do). Dahn 02:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask: did you mean to remove the link for "Helladic provinces" to Ottoman Greece? Was it factually wrong or was it just an accident? Dahn 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. One other thing puzzling me involves references. For Paparrigopoulos, you have added an "Eb" in one reference. If this meant to be the volume, why is "Ab" given in the references? What does the mention in parantheses after his name indicate: a co-author? a pseudonym? the editor? About Hobsbawm: I want to make mention of him in notes as just Hobsbawm, and move indication of the book and chapter to "References" (as I have done for all other books). Do you object? Because I want to use a single format for references (no matter what that may be, but I'd rather use the one already present). Dahn 02:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italians and French

I feel obliged to tell you that Italy is not culturally and anthropologically as homogeneous as France. Besides the usual stereotype there is much more in a country which draw its roots from the most diverse kinds of civilizations. While Greece was ruling over Southern Italy, the whole North was dominated by Celts. Whilst Normans were in Sicily, Lombards invaded northern Italy. Today, the dialects spoken in the North are closer to French than to the Standard Italian, and regions like Piedmont and Lombardy are all but "purely mediterrean" (in fact, they don't have neither a mediterrean climate). Belive it or not, in average people from Turin look much more alike people from Strasbourg than people from Messina: this is not a merit for one or the other, it's just a fact. Try to go there and report. But, yes, when all is said and done, who cares. And about French... they are culturally so far from us that in Italy we call them "our cousins". They don't deserve it, I know. --Fertuno 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanariote

Τα έχω πάρει στο κρανίο μ'αυτό τον τύπο. 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!

Έχω στείλει σχετικό μήνυμα και στο Nicosilver, που ανέφερε το Dahn, για παραβίαση του 3R rule.--Yannismarou 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Miskin, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Dear Miskin,

regarding your edit I would like you to point out that I, as the mediator in this case I will not tollerate such sarcasm remarks and I would like to ask you to be more polite and more civil,

best regards,Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: although I did characterize that comment as "rude and borderline homophobic", I didn't actually ask W.C. to do anything about it. I was using your comment as an example to show him that his clumsy attempt at mediation was actually provoking users to harden their positions, instead of coming together to form a consensus. I agree with Akhilleus' restoration of your comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

You are receiving this notice because you have recently commented on Talk:Alexander the Great. You may be interested in the mediation case located here. It is my hope that mediation will help solve the debate, but you are welcome to participate or not participate as you choose. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source of an old upload

Hello,

Could you have a look at this discussion on Commons. It deals with an image you first uploaded on the English Wikipedia, and that I later transfer into Commons. The real source of the image is now not clear at all: did you take the photography yourself? or did you copy it from this page (or a similar one)?

Thanks for your answer. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, a simple point

Unless I'm mistaken, "-oi" stands for plural. I.e.: "The Johnsons family". You either say "the Johnson family" or "the Johnsons". Dahn 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you like posting misleading summary edits, Miskin? Ah, never mind - I don't really want to know. Dahn 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, I would not write down complicated summaries if the edits I'm replying to would make sense - the more elementary the mistake, the more complicated the reply. Not to mention that I seem to be have been placed on parole by the entirety of the Greek users' cabal (I would have wanted to avoid the usual stream of IPs who, without getting the point of simple and natural edits, revert with childish and inflammatory comments on the side). I wouldn't have asked about the misleading summaries if this wasn't the third of fourth time I've seen you do it. It ids still mysterious to me why "Mavrocordatos family" needed to be cosmetized to "Mavrocordotos", but whatever keeps you happy. Dahn 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.Because I don't contribute to wikipedia merely to clean up after you when you should know better than to add stuff like that. 2.Because most the added fragment does not have any relevancy either way, and the rest is redundant. Dahn 13:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp ^TC 09:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malakies

Sorry about that edit, I just couldn't resist getting the Aristotle joke in with my edit summary. ;-) The edit itself is pretty meaningless. If I remember right, there is some uncertainty about the ultimate etymological identity of the two words. Not that it really matters for the malakies at hand... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Μοναστήρι

How come Bitola doesn't have the Greek and Turkish names of the city in the head? Is it some sort of exception? Miskin 12:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause it got a name section. Khoi khoi 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how about adding a name section in Thessaloniki, Crete, Chios, Rhodes... and the literally countless of Greek articles which mention Turkish names right in the head? Unless of course, Bitola is some kind of exception to the rule, now is it? Miskin 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but when there are a great deal of alt. names, it makes the intro look crowded. In Crete, it would be pointless to create a new section for something so short anyways. Khoi khoi 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How will two alternatives names (Greek and Turkish) make it crowded? Have you checked what's happening in Thessaloniki? I'm not falling for such an excuse. Aldux reverted me claiming "duplication of info", but in Thessaloniki too the Turkish name is well mentioned in the damn body of the article, yet no-one claimed a "duplication of information". I'm going to add those names back, and if other editors insist on removing them then I'll start removing foreign names from the heads of Greek articles too. I'm getting the impression that some certain ethnic groups get special treatement because people feel sorry for them or because they just bitch too much. I don't really care to examine the reasons, but it's a clear double-standard policy which I'm not going to tolerate. All I'm asking for is justice. Miskin 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you whine a little bit more and maybe you'll get your way. Khoi khoi 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With such helpful attitude you'll make me regret supporting your adminship much sooner than expected. Miskin 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Khoi khoi 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

;-)

You mean common Greek terminology, which most Greeks think it's English terminology. ;-)) It is really hillarious to say it's anachronistic, when you think that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and not separate ethnic group. I don't see any anachronism here. So, the question is now, do you think that Ancient Macedonians were a separate ethnic group or part of the Greeks (Ellines)? Bomac 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like, you mean ancient Macedonians were assimilated? ;-) Bomac 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, review WP:NOFEEDING. Bomac, they may (assuming they were not already Greek in the first place) have been assimilated.--Tekleni 16:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decius

I don't know, Miskin. This is just one of Tony S's trigger-happy blocks of an account he considered disruptive. I am sure Decius-Alexander can just create another account if he feels like it. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vita

You misunderstand. The Vita is the Slavonic-language biography of St Cyril. Byzantine Emperor Michael III calls the inhabitants of Thessaloniki "solunEnE" (where E represents yat) because, well, the document is written in Slavonic and that's the Slavonic name of the city in the oldest sources. As far as I know there is no Greek original. I never claimed that Michael III called the city by the Slavonic name in his original, unrecorded Greek-language speech, but rather was trying to show that the form "SolunU" for the city is the standard Common Slavonic form. If you want the exact citation from the Vita, it's on the first page or so of the latest edition of Lunt's Old Church Slavonic (The Hague: Walter de Gruyter, 2001). That's where I first encountered the line солѹнѣне вьси чисто словѣньскъi бесѣдѹѭтъ. I'm not relying on anything from the Web, and don't know why you thought so. CRCulver 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Thessaloniki is historically important enough in the Slavic world to merit the name there, especially considering what Michael III says of it. Better to represent everyone than to leave someone out. 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I've already referred you to the Vita, you cannot say that every source you've read on Thessaloniki says the Slavs were insignificant. Even if you feel the Vita is not sufficient evidence in this regard, it still exists. CRCulver 18:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the Slavs were somehow significant when a Byzantine emperor says that all Thessalonians speak perfect Slavonic isn't some private interpretation, it's the plain meaning of the text. I never said that they formed any numerically significant population, but bilingualism means notable cultural influence. CRCulver 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not say that there was a numerically significant Slavonic population in Thessaloniki, all I said it that there was significant cultural influence, just as there would be by English-speakers on the Oslo residents of your example. And this reading of the text can be found in various major English-language handbooks of OCS. It's in Lunt, as I cited above, and Nandris as well IIRC. Also, the hagiography of St Cyril maintained by various Slavic national Orthodox churches ascribes a significant Slavic population to the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, but I'll need to stop by the library to formally cite this. CRCulver 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian people

I think you are right. We can remove it completely. --Fertuno 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek and Turkish names

Miskin, I am sick of this childish bickering about Greek/Turkish/Slavic/etc. names of Greek/Turkish/Macedonian/etc. places. I have consistently been an 'inclusionist' in this area -- mention all the historically and culturally relevant names in all the articles. When relevant, I have added Greek names to cities in Asia Minor, Turkish and Slavic names to cities in Greece, and Greek and Turkish names to cities in the Republic of Macedonia (and no, I will not play silly political games by calling it FYROM). Now we are at a new level of silly bickering -- whether the name belongs in the head of the article or in the body. I thought a consensus had been reached that if there is a discussion in the body, then the head would only mention the current official name and the common current English name if that is different (e.g. Wien/Vienna, Tenedos/Bozcaada, etc.). Reasonable enough. So let's stop the revert wars. I will not participate in them. --Macrakis 15:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Diafora

Prospatho na min eimai idiaitera epikritikos se kapoious users, pistevontas apla oti den einai upoxrewmenoi na gnwrizoun ta panta, anaforika me tin istoria tou topou kai ta istoriko-thriskeutiko-ethnika dikaiwmata tis perioxis. tha xanaprosthesw to elliniko onoma sto Monastiri, kai an xanaafairethei, tha vgalw to 'Slavic' apo tin Thessaloniki, metonomazontas to apla se 'Bulgarian'. Oi Boulgaroi users den fainontai na enoxlountai apo to elliniko sto Plovdiv... Sunepws, no prob for me either! Oso gia ta Giannena, Corintho, ktl, as mou deixoun prwta 'notability' gia na to exoume, kai meta ta xanaleme... Regards Hectorian 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanariotes

I was asked a little while ago if I would intervene as an outside party to help resolve the dispute about the lead of this article. After a bit of a delay, I've made some proposals on the talk page; could you take a look at them and see what you think? Thanks, --Robth^Talk 05:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta

De nada! Khoi khoi 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue III - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Well, next time don't jump the gun on flaimbaits, as I had stated on my posts :))) I had read your post before you put it in my talk page, so don't worry.. Please don't use expressions like "imperfect education", I know that since we can only put our thoughts into writing, some stuff can be lost in communication, but you should try to read between the lines sometimes. And, also don't worry about my grasp of the fundamental notions of any nation: half the speeches and notions used during the nation-state processes of nearly every country are demagogic or half-correct at best. That's the irony :)) That's normal though, how the hell were people going to create "national identities" out of the thin air out of thousands of years of religious-based identification? In any case, it was one off-the-topic banter between me and Hectorian, so don't take it too seriously :)) Of course I realize to what point the Ottoman state built itself from the remnants of other Empires that it conquered, particularly when they made one of their capitals their own capital. How do you think they were going to build a state otherwise?? Bring in aliens to run the country?? :)) They also adopted other elements from Persian and Islamic culture because of religion. But you see, that's the point, history is always interconnected, there are no "revolutions", it goes for every country and region. What does it mean to be "Turk" or "Greek" or "Italian" etc at the end of the day? It is just a choice, some people take that choice too far sometimes.. Cheers! Baristarim 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games can be fun :)) Bon weekend! Baristarim 07:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sujeto

Look dude, just read the sign:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Khoi khoi 01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jewish. Khoi khoi 03:14, 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]

Ok, if it were so, then so be it. It was only that I cannot help be a little suspicious of some spill-over debates that affect smaller articles.. As for the grammar issue, u r right i suppose, i couldn't make out the grammar consistency with all those brackets and apostrophes and all in the code.. I have to go now, but I will look into it later. Baristarim 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine identity

Hello, Miskin. I'd prefer to keep communications on the English WP in English, so that no editor feels excluded. If I'm tempted to write something that most other editors can't understand, it probably doesn't belong in a WP discussion. Anyway, your note had nothing like that in it.

Why did I write my comment on Talk:Byzantine Empire welcoming Javits? Well, um, to welcome him. He is a newish editor with a strong background in not only Byzantine issues but also art history, and I want to make sure he continues to contribute. Several editors (including you) have been overly confrontational and agressive with his earnest efforts to contribute high-quality content, and I want him to know that his work are appreciated. I also want to make sure that we all agree that good, solid, modern sources should underlie our contributions. Just as we shouldn't be using the 1911 Britannica or the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia without careful re-editing (see my comments on Template talk:Catholic, for example), we certainly shouldn't be taking Paparrigopoulos or Toynbee (or Fallmerayer!) as representing current thinking, or for that matter the ethnocentric school textbooks that are still being used in Greece (cf. Hamilakis).

I know that you want to ensure that Greek perspectives are not slighted, and that Greek civilization is not belittled. That is a good thing. On the other hand, it is not a good thing to exclude other reputable and well-sourced perspectives, or to interpret sources tendentiously. And I certainly don't think it is a good idea to aggressively attack and ridicule people who have different serious perspectives. I hope that you, Javits, and everyone else will be able to work on many articles constructively and productively rather than haggle interminably. --Macrakis 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked you why you welcomed whomever you welcomed, I asked you why do you constantly try to belittle my contributions. Forget about it. Miskin 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mporeis na elegkseis to diko sou. Hectorian 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine vs Eastern Roman empire

Heya, as to the comments on my talk page: "because they weren't spoken by the people we call 'Byzantines', but by people who were frequently their subjects and frequently their enemies" - that's the whole point of difference, I fear. The Byzantine Empire rules over Byzantine people, and a subject of the Emperor is a Byzantine. It can be safely assumed that those "Byzantines" mostly spoke Greek at least as a second language, but it's not necessary. The same applies to the Romans during the Empire: every citizen of the Empire can be called a "Roman", modified only when his backgound is important. Your sentence "a medieval civilisation with no identity which suddenly disappeared after the sack of Constantinople" - that's what I meant with "conjuring up strawmen" and "exaggerations" on the BE talk. No one ever suggested that. It is frustrating to see - imho very reasonable - compromises neglected by refuting something which was never claimed. As to the distinction between Eastern Roman and Medieval Byzantine Empire: yeah, maybe; see also my comment on the BE talk; it makes sense. However, I also want to avoid that we now cut the medieval empire from its predecessor - it developed from the late antique one, it didn't simply come into existence. Regards, Varana 17:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French vs. Italian people

Hi, I saw by chance your interesting comment at Fertuno's page: I don't really care about your dispute but I feel obliged to tell you that Italians have very few similarities to the French culturally and physically, the only link is the linguistic element. The French in average look a lot more like the Germans, and the Italians are purely a mediterranean people since ancient times. Plus the French bean the Italians at football 3-1, which points out their striking cultural differences. ;) Miskin 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Well, you are almost completely right. Nevertheless, by both a linguistic (See: G.Hull, the linguistic unity of northern Italy and Rhaetia) and an anthropological point of view (see e.g. Luca Cavalli Sforza's books about genetic barriers in Europe), the so called 'Northern Italians' are very close to the Germans as well, even if more 'mixed': and they are not mediterranian at all (including even Ligurian people), rather alpine-like. This holds since ancient times as well. Finally, the linguistic element rather links French people to Rhaeto-Cisalpine ones (see again G.Hull), and separate them by strico sensu (i.e. paeninsular) Italian people. If you are interested in, please contac me at my user page. Bests, --Clamengh 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I tried to explain why the dates of the OE are relevant in the Turkey talk page. Cheers! Baristarim 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to propose deletion of this?

For your immediate attention! There is an image which you might consider for deletion. Image is given at the below.--OttomanReference 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

E.Y.Π. Κυπατζήδες

Yeah. :-) It's kinda cool to be the mastermind... Khoi khoi 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Hello! I know you have been a keen contributor to the discussions at Talk:Byzantine Empire, so I am eager to know what you think about the latest proposal on that page. There is a vote about whether or not we should change the Byzantine Empire from pink to purple in all the maps of the article. I would be very happy to see your support or object, or even comment on this issue. Please let us know what you think! Thanks, Bigdaddy1204 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Dear Miskin, Regarding your edits on Ottoman Empire, edited materials and your summary is not related. I think these links are not Ugly. I want to see those links in article. Please put them back again. Regards Must ^TC 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Dear Miskin, Please be calm. Please look at my edit summaries and edits, which one is POV?

in Manzikert there was Byzantine Empire, you changed it to Greeks, there is not etimology page, history-states.
Asia Minor; please read full sentence. We are talking about a current state, and total area. Is Byzantine Empire in only anatolia or Anatolia+Thrace?

Please take a look again. Regards. Must ^TC 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Turkey revert

You're welcome! I think he would accuse you of being anti-Turk or something if you did the revert. I could not clearly decide whether to revert the Byzantine Empire link back to Byzantine Greeks, they are like equivalent and everyone knows that's a Greek civilization. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Dear Miskin, I want to assume good faith, but please choose your words correctly.blind, Trolling are not suitable words to continue to discuss. Macedonia, please make your edits carefully.Please read again this section. Which area we are talking on. The area that stated in this section is not Greek Makedonia region. Where is the Skopje now. Please analyze historical matters more carefully. Regards. Must ^TC 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonia

Dear Miskin, For your comfort, take it back. Please check historical details( I will do same) in this period. After further investigation lets discuss again. Regards Must ^TC 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Let's talk rationally. The victory was over the army of the Byzantine Empire, not over some ethnicity. Changing the name is WP:POINT and unacademic. How do you know of the exact ethnic composition of the Byzantine Empire? It says "following the victory of Seljuqs over the Byzantine Empire in the Battle of Manzikert". This makes it clear that it is referring to a specific battle, a battle in which armies have fought each other. That's one. Secundo, I think that you haven't read the article quite clearly. It doesn't mention Manzikert as one of those places whose inhabitants are referred to as Byzantine Greeks. Manzikert doesn't correspond. For these reasons, namely, a) the battle was between the armies, and therefore Empires and b) the fact that Manzikert doesn't correspond with the area talked about in the article; it should stay at Byzantine Empire. In any case, the uniformed reader would like to follow the blue link to the article of the entity that fought in that battle, not the ethnic group that might have composed the army. Ottoman Empire article doesn't link to Turkish people or Turkic peoples, it links directly to the entity. Otherwise it would be confusing for the uninformed reader. I am sorry but I can't help but see this as wp:point. What is wrong with Byzantine Empire to begin with, notwithstanding the reasons I just listed? Cheers!Baristarim 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you mean. Just hold on for a while, and I promise to get back to you about this no later than tomorrow. I have so much in my plate at the moment that I am not able to peruse the matters closely, I have a huge backlog! No disrespect, I didn't mean any offense. I am also tired after a weird AfD, but I will definitely have a look. Baristarim 19:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The difference is that Ottoman Turks link to the Ottoman Empire article, not some ethnic article. What lawyer provocation strategy? Turkish editors aren't going around creating articles simply to oppose and piss Greek editors off at all costs (cough AfD cough). So spare me the accusations of "lawyer provocation". Seeming how generous you are with the provocation accusations, forget that link being included in the article. I had told you I was going to take a look at it, but I don't know if it is worth it now. I had enough of being accused of I don't know what.Baristarim 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the recent edit is ok. Baristarim 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am sorry for earlier, I was way too stressed out yesterday to actually look into the Byzantine Greeks article link with a straight head. On second thoughts, most probably I wouldn't have blindly reverted your first edit. But the second edit fits in well with the section as well as factually. Baristarim 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue IV - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles in WP:HOG

Hi, Miskin! Sorry for the delay in my response, but I was in Karpenisi until today.

New articles can be added by chronological and thematic order in the New articles section. In the talk page of any new article you can also add the {{WPHOG}}; the article gets automaticallly added within the scope of the project.

Χρόνια πολλά!--Yannismarou 19:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the Byzantine Greeks article. It looks like a very good article, good job! I also learned new things as well :) Again, I am sorry that I hadn't approached it with greater consideration earlier... Cheers and Happy New Year!! Baristarim 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan Muslims

I was surprised that you deleted material I added on Cretan Muslims. I wrote up the rationale for my edits on Talk:Cretan Muslims, and would appreciate a reply there. --Macrakis 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged my edits into your article. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would query my edits in Talk rather than revert them.

Now, about some of the previous language.... The article used to say:

A minority of the population (local Greek notables) converted to Islam, so that the Cretan ruling class would remain Greek-speaking.

In reading this, most native speakers of English would assume that "so that" means "in order to", but this seems to be extracted from a longer passage in Glenny which you quote elsewhere:

The fall of Crete was not however accompanied by a significant influx of Muslims from elsewhere in the Empire. Instead, local Greek notables converted to Islam and continued in their role as chief landowners and administrators so that the Cretan ruling class remained Greek-speaking.

In this context, a native speaker of English understands the same words "so that" to mean that the consequence of conversion to Islam was that the ruling class remained Greek-speaking (which we all agree about, by the way), but not that that was their intent. The change from "remained" to "would remain" makes a big difference. Moreover, Glenny's language says that notables converted to Islam, but it doesn't say that non-notables did not convert to Islam. In fact, if you read Greene, you'll see that conversion to Islam was one way of moving up the social ladder.... --Macrakis 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Χρόνια Πολλά κι Ευτυχισμένα!

Ωραίο καιρό μας έκανε φέτος αυτές τις μέρες ε? :-) Πήγες στο χωριό? Niko Silver 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ποντιακή διάλεκτος

Will you fix the double redirects? :-) Khoi khoi 04:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek vs. Greek

The reason I call Archimedes an Ancient Greek as opposed to just a Greek is because in a modern contexts, "Greek" suggests just the Greek Peninsula, whereas Ancient Greek covers the whole span of Greece's influence in the ancient world- not a lot of people are aware that "Greek" could also mean Sicily and areas quite far from modern Greece. The article on Greeks doesn't really mention this, wheras Ancient Greeks mentions it in a "Rise of Greece" section and also has a map highlighting Greek colonies in the ancient world. I don't know if this is just arguing semantics with you, but I thought I'd point it out. --Wafulz 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To exw dei idi. To sxolio 'upon creation' deixnei kathara tous skopous dimiourgias tou arthrou... Hectorian 13:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afto lew ki egw. Hectorian 13:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. apla ithela na deiksw to poso geloio einai... Oxi, den gnwrizw tin diadikasia, den exw proteinei pote arthro gia diagrafi... Mipws mporeis na to analaveis esy? Hectorian 13:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tha doume ti tha ginei... Exw tin entypwsi oti aftos einai kaltsa kapoiou, alla den eimai sigouros poiou... Hectorian 13:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ton eida kai epanefera to arthro. Tha exw to nou mou. Hectorian 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandals

Hey minion...err...Miskin. I've semi-protected Battle of Thermopylae. Should I protected 300 (film) and 300 (comic book) as well? Khoi khoi 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Italy on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Matteo 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumelia

Let's do it in rumelia talk page... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chapultepec (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your support

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long
Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey
May there be many summer mornings when
With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time

Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey
And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something
To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable
This is my assistance with anything I can help.

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue V (I) - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter (the first issue after the merger of the History of Greece Wikiproject with the Wikiproject Greece) has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Hi Miskin. I don't accept that the featured status means that it's not permitted to make an edit such as that. Nevertheless, I'll restore the previous version as a gesture of good faith, and refrain from moving it unless there's a change in consensus. Slac speak up! 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that despite Byzantium's political continuation to Rome (which is also ambiguous since the Emperors were not being approved by the city of Rome) scholars today draw a straight line between the Roman Empire which fell in the fifth century and all later Christian empires that claimed its heritage. It's not up to wikipedians to decide which Roman Empire is more entitled to carry the name. "The Greek-speaking Roman Empire" i.e. "just another Roman Empire" can only confuse someone who is beginning to learn on the topic. To someone who already knows about Byzantium it won't make any difference.

It's a toughie. Basically, my view is that this current form of words nicely avoids POV problems. Here is my reasoning:

"The Greek-speaking Roman Empire" doesn't necessarily mean "just another Roman Empire" - maybe there was just one Roman Empire, and it spoke Greek.
Scholarly opinion is that Roman law, administration, and custom didn't completely disappear in the fifth century. Rather, the divided fifth-century entity morphed into something rather different in the east and the west. In the east, there was an entity that said it was the Roman Empire, and had a pretty good claim to be recognised as such (at least as good a claim as the entity ruled by Honorius had to be the same entity that was ruled by Julius Caesar). From this POV, the Roman Empire did not fall in 476. The Byzantine Empire, from its POV, wasn't half of anything - in the same way that the Orthodox Church wasn't half of the Christian Church.
It's not simply a matter of inheriting something or other - the western/Latin translatio imperii concept - but of *continuing* something. The Byzantine perspective was not that the Roman Empire collapsed, then its inheritance was passed onto another, discrete political entity or person (this was the view promulgated by the Papacy and Charlemagne). Rather, the Byzantine perspective was that the Roman empire continued, having moved its capital to Constantinople.
I think that it's fairly essential that the Empire is described as (a/the) "Roman Empire" and it can't really be contended that it wasn't (I can't find any westerners who openly disputed that the Byzantines had any imperial legitimacy right up until the fourth Crusade). My view is that the form of words neatly dances around the question of articles (is it "a" or "the"?). The phrase "the Greek-speaking Roman Empire" can't be faulted from a hypothetical position that supports the Byzantine perspective, or from a modern, historical one as well. And a medieval opponent of Byzantine claims to imperial authority is quite happy because it's a greek-speaking (Orthodox) Empire, so everyone knows that it can't be the real Roman Empire.

As I say, it's a tough issue and calls for delicate wording. Any thoughts? Slac speak up! 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dodona"

Oh please Miskin. "I won't stop replying until he stops insulting me" - I can understand your frustration, but don't you see you're just feeding him? This is really irrational. He won't stop, that's just the point. He won't. And you'll just anser again. And he won't stop. And you will answer again. And he still won't. Please give it a rest now. I'm going to remove your posting and I might adopt a line of just reverting all of you on sight on that page. Neither of you are talking about the article, so none of this really belongs there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodona (onomastiki), Dodonës (geniki), Dodonën (aitiatiki), Dodonë (klitiki) is a female name (obvious). Thulium 10:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the best remedy against trolling is slow reverting. Let the junk stand for half a day or a day, and then just silently remove it. Which is what I'm now gonna do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Cyril

You may want to review the arbitrary move of St Cyril.--Domitius 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"demonic"

Hello Miskin,

I just wanted to reassure you that I don't believe that your comments are "dehumanising" or "demonic", and that something is indeed wrong with the attitude of some of the other editors on that page, whether they realise it or not. I suggest that you not waste time getting drawn into long discussions with them, but rather deal with the most problematic point they make, and then just leave them alone. In this case especially, since they all recognise that "something" needs to be changed about the pictures, I think it is both more feasible and more important for us to work on that practical goal than to hope that they will see what we see as wrong in their approach. Maybe after achieving the former, they will also have more insight regarding the latter, but maybe they won't =D. Cheers (and good job on staying cool and civil), Tewfik^Talk 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta

Thanks for your contribution to the pasta article:

The earliest recorded word for "noodle" in the mediterranean basin and Europe is the Greek "itria". The term was transmitted to Catalonia through the Arabs, where it became "alatria"

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to confirm this etymology through any of my sources, including ancient and modern Greek dictionaries and Dalby's Siren Feasts, which surveys the ancient and Byzantine food literature quite well in general. A serious-looking Web source, [1], claims that there is an Arabic word itriya which comes from the Greek word ίτριον, a kind of cake with sesame (not pasta). What evidence does Santich cite? --Macrakis 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operate

I would like to cooperate with you too, but I feel that every time I make a suggestion, you'll come up with some rude comback directed towards me or the Turkish editors, as I feel you've done in the past. That's why I feel uneasy having to engage in dialogue with you. However, I suppose I'll give it a shot. Khoi khoi 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that a consensus has been reached? I have to disagree with the original version. I honestly don't agree that we should have a separate Cretan Muslims article as well. It should either be merged or renamed. I can understand why Cretanforever wouldn't want to discuss things with you. You've repeatedly insulted him and others, like the time you said to me, "Please, just stay out of this one, it's out of your league and you're only making things worse." This is why I don't like to go on that talk page anymore. Khoi khoi 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 300 (film)

While I appreciate your removal of inappropriate content from this film article, I advise you to be more neutral in your edit summaries. Just say "Removing POV edit that consists of original research" or something of the like, if you can. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I've responded similarly in the past. I just get the feeling that there will be more of these edits for 300 in the future (see the talk page for what we've dealt with before), and I think it would be better to just have edit summaries explaining objectively why it was removed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you Miskin! Picture was corected! so the articles! Thank you again! (Seleukosa 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Cooperation on Cretan Muslims

Miskin, I don't understand. You complain to FuturePerfect that I don't "support" you, but even when I agree with you on the Talk page (which is a surprisingly large amount of the time), you are aggressive and confrontational. What's the problem? --Macrakis 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

You can try filing a request at the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser - however if the user is using proxies it will be harder to figure it out, even though during checkuser they check for similar editing patterns. If not, you can leave a note at Khoikhoi's page about it, sometimes strong suspicions can be considered enough - but it would be better if that were decided with the consultations of an admin. I hope I could help! Baristarim 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image

Thanks, no one else helped!!Tourskin 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Τουρκοκρητικοί

Σ΄ευχαριστώ για το μήνυμά σου.

Μου φαίνεται όχι μόνο πιο φρόνιμο να μένουμε συγκρατημένοι, αλλά και καλή τακτική -- όταν θα εξετάσει ένας εξωτερικός συντάκτης η διαχειριστής τη συζήτηση και την ιστορία του άρθρου, θα καταλάβει αμέσως πιός είναι ο σοβαρός και πιός ο ανόητους. Οι πόλεμοι των ριβέρτ κάνουν να μοιάζεις με τους ανόητους. Γι'αυτό αρνούμαι ν΄ανακατεύομαι στούς καβγάδες. Ελπίζω να μπορέσουμε να συνεργαστούμε ακολουθόντας αυτή τη πολιτική.

        - Σ      --Macrakis 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ΥΓ -- Θα προτιμούσα να αλληλογραφούμαι στα Αγγλικά για κάποια διαφάνεια έναντι των άλλων συντακτών.

Persian and Greek

I think you're right to remove Greek from the list of languages which Old Persian influenced, since the direct influence is not strong. I suppose the one word you had in mind was μάγος, but there is also σάκχαρο, σπανάκι, σατράπης, etc. (personal names like Ξέρξης, Ρωξάνη... don't count) According to some dictionaries, παράδεισος comes in the Middle Persian period, and many others come in Middle or Modern, like μελιτζάνα, μπαμπάκι, πιλάφι, σκάκι, μπρούντο, χαβιάρι, σάχης, νεράντζι, καβουρντίζω, γιαχνί, ρύζι, διβάνι/ντιβάνι, παζάρι, πασάς, etc. Many of these come via Turkish or Arabic, of course, and some of them have ultimate origins in Sanskrit. I wonder where the right place to put these fascinating connections is. In particular, it never ceases to impress me that Persian food terminology (not ingredients, but dishes and techniques) can be found from Bosnia to Bangladesh via the Ottomans in the West and the Mughals in the east: kebab (ćevap), kavurma (korma, καβουρντίζω), yahni, pilaf, .... --Macrakis 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, paradise is Avestan, a different ancient Iranian language. Μάγος is indeed probably from PIE *magh, but it came into Greek from Old Persian maguš (see Calvert Watkins, American Heritage Dict. of I-E Roots; Carl Darling Buck, Dict'y of Selected Synonyms in the Principal I-E Languages; Μπαμπινιώτης; Ανδριώτης, Ετυμολογικό Λεξικό). The Greek reflex of magh- is μηχανή. You say:

I wasn't aware about the origin of those words you mentioned to be, but if what you say is true, then they most likely do not come from Old Persian like the article claims, but from some other, later Aryan language (maybe not even Persian).

You see, this is what I mean by its being hard to agree with you. I said above precisely that most of these words come from Middle or Modern Persian, via Turkish and Arabic, and precisely that they did not come from Old Persian. We agree. So why are you repeating that they most likely do not come from Old Persian? I also agreed with you that the claim that Greek was strongly influenced by Old Persian should be removed. The only thing I was adding to the discussion was that there are in fact many words (not just one) in Greek which do come from various periods of Persian. --Macrakis 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinople

Do not add the category of "History of Greece", as Constantinople already has the category of "Ancient Greek Cities", "Ancient Greek sites in Turkey", and "Megarian Colonies" (which covers Byzantium). This was discussed. If you wish to add a category, bring it up on the talk page properly. If you continue to persist, you may very well receive administrative action. Thank you. Rarelibra 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state that you are an adult, yet you persist in adding the category against the consensus of the talk that was established. If you wish to participate in the discussion, that is great. If you wish to continue to persist in adding a category, that is creating more of the edit conflict. The edit conflict is handled in talk, yes. But that is not what you are choosing to do - do not act like you don't know what you are doing. Thank you. Rarelibra 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Turkey project

I didn't know there was one. If I've made some sort of mistake regarding adding a banner to that effect, my apologies. I've been trying to tag the articles that appear on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/VA tagging list for the various projects relevant to the articles, and, in some cases, have created pages for proposed projects that didn't yet exist and/or created banners for existing projects that didn't have any. I can very easily acknowledge I may have screwed up big time in the process, though. Sorry if I did so. John Carter 19:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added the banner because Constantinople is in Turkey. Maybe not the best reason, I know, but I think that was it. Also, at the end of my little binge of tagging here, I'm going to try to notify all the projects that appear on the various talk pages of the VA articles that those articles are important to the Editorial Team, and hoping that some of them get a bit more attention that way. It probably won't actually get much accomplished, but it's probably worth a try. John Carter 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have a point there. I regret to say that I don't know enough about the subject myself to really be able to have a valid opinion one way or another. If you wish to remove the banner, please feel free to do so. John Carter 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]