User talk:NikoSilver/Archive 9

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

12345678Archive 91011121314

NikoSilverism spreads!

ZOMG... is this yet another sockpuppet of yours (unlikely) or the virus of Humorus Nicus Silveriosus has badly infected the wikipedians, starting from Greek ones? (Not that I wasn't affected)... Just a notice...

In any case, I won't be around to hear your answer soon (and it isn't really required). Happy New Year & all the best. See you around. Duja 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! That virus would certainly be a nice change in this dull place! Only problem is that I'm probably losing yet another patent!

SHysterical.gif Happy New Year! NikoSilver 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gia rixe mia matia sto arthro tis symprotevousas na deis ti proteino. Politis 16:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

When I read that post at WP:AN/I, Ireally couldn't believe it was Yannis - it seemed Nikos at his most rouge and exilharant heights. That poor Coolcat! At the end I almost felt sorry for him ;-) It was simply too great! Come on Niko, in all honesty, do you promise you didn't hack his account? ;-) If it's a virus, well, wiki is really going to become the coolest place around ;-) I think Yannis can be admitted in the Supreme Cabal Regime now, don't you think so? (but only at half salary; the full salary is only for us veteran cabalists :-)))))--Aldux 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think he was approached by W.E.S.U.C.K.B.A.D too, but cited naming concerns and decided to pass. You see, humor hacks brains, not accounts... NikoSilver 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Humorus Nicus Silveriosus?!!! Is this fatal?! Can I be cured?! Or, shouldn't I? From now on, I'll even use Nicos' signature to confuse the world further more. I'll be his nemesis. His untracable humor-forger. Happy new year, Nicos!--Yannismarou 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello and a happy & lucky 2007

Dear Niko,

my Greek is a peculiar hearing matter for a native speaker of Greek. As a linguist told me (additionally my cousin), I have a wonderful German accent. Therefore I managed keeping down my knowledge of Greekby Babel indicators to a non-ashaming level ;-) Thanks for the correction and see subject for all other (more important) things to say and wish. Christaras A 15:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, she is not. She just heard me talking for approx. 10 minutes ... and her statement was done. I suspected her of being limited in German - however, she has a linguistic degree in German, too. Therefore ... down the drains goes my Greek. ;-) Christaras A 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about speaking Greek with a German accent, Christaras, even as a native speaker.I speak Polish with a Russian accent, Russian with a Polish accent, and sadly speak little Dari (Afghan Farsi Dari, not Iranian Dari), but with an Iranian accent, except around Iranians who can tell it's Afghan, and Spanish with a street-gutter accent and similarly unsuitable vocabulary, all these to the great shame of various sides of the family.KP Botany 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Dear Niko, thanks for your New Year greetings and explanation on the name "Antipatros". Usually I am known in all places as "Sacerdos79", but when I started to work in English Wikipedia I was at the time interested in Alexander the Great. As you surely know Antipatros was a powerful figure in his Empire. I kind of liked that name and registered it as my ID here.

Anyway, I am glad I could be of help in regard of Estonian reaction to the execution of Saddam.

All the best for a prosperous and happy New Year! -- Toomas 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Καλησπέρα είμαι ο Αϊ Βασίλης και σου έφερα το δώρο σου : Happy New Year! -(Καλή χρονιά) και πάντα με υγεία! Smiley.svg --Asteraki 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Undo optioins for computer morons

Well, I tried the roll-over, and it didn't work--that seemed obvious, that the computer illiterate being led by the computer semi-literate should just play around with offered solutions.I will try it again.I will be back to accuse you of various things (if I can figure out which side of which conspiracies you are on without more than 5 seconds of work) if it fails.KP Botany 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Hello. I've always been interested in the issue between the FYROM and Greece. Why is there so much tension, and what's the problem with FYROM's name? Thanks - The RSJ Sign my book|CCD 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. That really enlightened me :) I'll be sure to read what you told me, and have a happy New Year, too - The RSJ Sign my book|CCD 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Καλή Χρονιά και Χρόνια Πολλα! Kapnisma 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ πολύ, το αυτό εύχομαι δι'έσε, ελπίζω να πέρασες καλά τις γιορτές, αυτή τη στιγμή γράφω το αρθρο για τον Αναστάσιο Καρατάσο δες το σε λίγο, σκεφτομαι να συγκεντρώσω και να γράψω όλους τους οπλαρχηγους από τη Μακεδονία (καρατασαίοι, ζαφειράκος, ύπατρος, παππάς, γάτσος, κτλ). Θα κάνω ειδική κατηγορία Μακεδόνες Οπλαρχηγοί. Kapnisma 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, Kala, den xereis ton Karataso? h ton Gatso? A, re, eseis oi xamoutzides mou fainetai mono gia ton Kolokotroni mathatai. Vakalopoulos pou sas chreiazetai... Einai dynaton na min yparxei arthro gia ton emmanuil pappa?Kapnisma 20:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

etoimo, des to ligo Kapnisma 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

to 'kana Kapnisma 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

giati exw galouxithei mesw twn ypsistwn idewdwn tis fylhs mas giafto, xereis twra: Aris (Aris re mounia!(sic) gia thn akriveia), frapedoumpa, ellinikos vorras, liakopoulos kai ta synafh... Mia erwtisi twra: Xereis ti shmainei i ekfrasi pou xrhsimopoioume edw panw έπαθα φούιτ? Kapnisma 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

to 'xera...xa-xa. Symainei epatha lastixo sto autokinito. Emeis oi Makedones megalomenoi me gallika kai piano xeroume oti proerxetai apo th gallikh lexi fuit pou symanei diarroi aera. Kataloipo tis gallikis katoxhw tou 1916. To energopoihsa. Kapnisma 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

pws tha soy steilw test, dhladh? eimai ligo adeksios se afta. Kapnisma 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Ευχαριστώ και Καλή χρονιά --tony esopi patratalk 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Star

Regarding this, I was wondering what will happen if some town decides to adopt the Pepsi logo. Has your government reacted?   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My Signature

I have decided to shorten my signature, so I am no longer using the style you gave me. Just a little font, link to User:S! and User:S!/E, and talk and signature shop. ~~ Sean gorter (Talk to me|Get a cool signature) 10:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi NikoSilver,

Congrats for this!

Glad somebody likes – thanks!  I wonder how long it will last...  Best wishes, David (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads-Up on MfD Nomination

I am writing to advise you of this Miscellany for Deletion nomination.If you wish to reply to this nomination, please do so in the deletion discussion and not on my talk page.Thanks in advance. — Whedonette (ping) 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MfD of signature shop

Hey, I saw the MfD, I supported your signature shop. Congrats, hope you have a good smile on your face, cause on the MfD page, I saw more Keep ' s in bold. Both of us may be saved... ~~Sean gorter (Talk to me|Get a cool signature) 09:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Always you greeks, stubborn people, grow up, the airport is renamed a week already, what do you want? a letter from the pope?

You greeks are losing control on this whole "Greek-Macedonia" thing ;) greetings from a very happy and Alexandrian Macedonia.Makedonia 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! The source says that it is planned to be renamed. I really hope it is indeed renamed. Then the whole world will see one more time how obvious the state sponsored history falsification is in your country! It's really laughable that you think that sticking to this falsifying practice helps your purpose with the name! Happy new year to you too! NikoSilver 09:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Every country, of course, has the fundamental right to look foolish, and the Republic is exercising this right in a particularly methodical way.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Funky, I've been trying to countersmart that statement for 10 minutes. Simply can't! NikoSilver 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm, I'm sure he's going to laugh his head off over the way we were all guessing which version was the right one. Anyway, perhaps you are right... :-) Fut.Perf. 12:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I bet he will be pleased, as I am sure he intended to attract attention with it! BTW, for which of all reasons do you think he accuses his country's government of being malakas? Did they decide something regarding Romania and Bulgaria that I am not aware of? NikoSilver 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No idea, haven't been following British politics very closely of late. Fut.Perf. 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hah, evening gentlemen :)) The old one (to which the IPs have been reverting) is the correct one. I wasn't online enough these days to login etc. But I'll do it now. Regarding the government of the country I live in, they have a "quota^Wdiscrimination system" for immigrants for the new member states, which I think is bigoted and offensive. - Francis Tyers · 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Yassou Niko!

Hope you had a good start to the year??

Any chance you can help me out agin, this time regarding what is on the talk page of Dora Stratou article?


Philhellenism 08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Mitsco is the name of my new subpage that contains all this now. Feel free to continue... :-) NikoSilver 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sig help!

I've got it down a bit more (to 182) by using your final suggestion on WP:AN and then using yet another little trick:

Your suggestion plus the dash I like (188): —'''[[User:Dark Shikari|<span style="background:#eef;color:#00b">Da<font color="#000066">rk<font color="#000022">•S</font>hik</font>ari</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Dark Shikari|[T]]]</sup>

The above, with a bit of hacking (note the color codes!): —'''[[User:Dark Shikari|<span style="background:#eef;color:#00b">Da<font color="#006">rk<font color="#002">•S</font>hik</font>ari</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Dark Shikari|[T]]]</sup>

182 :) —Dark•Shikari[T] 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid 3 digit color codes are not compatible with <font color="#..."> (only with <span style="color:#...">). What you see is an illusion, as the middle two colors err to black. However, if you do like it like that, then we can indeed blacken them and shorten it even further (by losing the middle color code):

Dark•Shikari[T] (157 chars -same result!)

Like it? I even darkened your background back to what you had originally, since black and dark blue letters provide adequate contrast for people with vision problems! NikoSilver 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They look completely different to me.I'm using Firefox here on Linux, and my version is definitely not black--the middle area is dark blue.Yours is completely black. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefox is far from a monopoly. IE6 and IE7 still show it black. Either change it back to 6 digits (for all can see) or do it black as I proposed. NikoSilver 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Or I can stick to the WC3 standards and do it my way.I don't really think it is important to cater to users of non-compliant browsers.Most modern programs don't work on Windows 3.1, and considering my sig is merely cosmetic, it doesn't need to work perfectly on outdated and broken browsers.I doubt Wikipedia works fully on Mosaic. —Dark•Shikari[T] 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...But Internet Explorer (IE) 6 and 7 don't run on ...Win 3.1 (they run on XP)! Anyway, sure, you can keep it that way, although more than half of the users won't see the blue in the center... NikoSilver 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Kalispera Mastro-Nikola. Mporis ean exis tin kalosini na dis afto kai afto kai na valis ena cheraki na voithisis?

  • Story:

Mallon prepi na kanw kati lathos, (alla i erotisi einai ti?) me apotelesma na min emfanizeteo Chartis sto pinakaki pliroforion sta deksia tou arthrou.

Ginete se parakalw na to tsekaris? Efcharisto. --Asteraki 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a look. Your code seems fine. Somebody recently edited the code on Template:Infobox Town GR, tweaking some display parameters of the locator maps, maybe it's related to a bug there. I've notified the guy who made those edits. Fut.Perf. 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like we worked it out. Fut.Perf. 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Γεια σου Συντελεσμένε Μέλλοντα! Thank you for answering and for this. Viele Grüsse --Asteraki 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Asteraki όπως βλέπεις το WIKIPEDIAN GREEK CHAUVINIST JUNTA συνεργάζεται μυστικά και ακούραστα! FP είμαι σίγουρος οτι δεν είχες σκεφτεί το συμβολισμό στην Ελληνική ερμηνεία του ονόματός σου όταν το υιοθέτησες, έτσι? "Συντελεσμένος Μέλλοντας στην Ανατολή" ... "Certain Future in the East"! :-) I wonder what that certain future is... NikoSilver 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Όχι, πραγματικά, δεν το σκέφτηκα έτσι :-) Fut.Perf. 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Niko!!!!

Happy New Year! As a gift, I'd like to nominate you for adminship (if you're not an administrator already).

Oh, and, I'd advise you to stick to English (according to Wikipedia's policy) [referring to the above Greek]. --PaxEquilibrium 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! Happy New Year Pax! Thank you for your offer! Duja had proposed me in the past too, but I passed. My concerns for now are the following:
  • I have no time to deal with the administrative tools in a productive way.
  • I am constantly involved in heated and controversial issues, and I am sure that there will be a lot of people with grudges, as I freely express my POV and I stand by my positions. I know who these are, and I don't need them listed on an oppose list for reference! :-)
  • I've never been denied admin help when I asked for it, and when my request was legitimate. I have many admin friends.
  • I have never abused my user status, so why would I need the tools if I am not going to abuse my admin status as well? :-)
NikoSilver 11:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You requested to be blocked???? Why???? :P Mitsos 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! I didn't want to be a "virgin" anymore! Check the three relative "virginity" comments in my humor section (starting from "On Duja's adminship")! NikoSilver 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are a virgin I 'm a prostitute!!! LOL Mitsos 16:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the humor section is great! You have great sense of humor!!! Mitsos 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait... Duja nominated you? Aren't you two supposed to be wiki-enemies? --PaxEquilibrium 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would we be? NikoSilver 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Check this

I think I should notify you of this edit of me. I hope it is the right decision! And if I finally implement it, I hope you will be a co-nominator. Καληνύχτα! Είμαι κουρασμένος, οπότε πάω για ποτό!--Yannismarou 21:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Μη καλός!

Αυτό δεν φαίνεται καλό. Στο κατάστημα υπογραφών Sean Gorter, μοιάζει με το θα διαγραφεί. Τι θα κάνουμε? Oh hey. Maybe you didn't understand that Greek because I translated it on a translating site, but I tried :) Anyway, I hope the sig shop doesn't get deleted. Why does this remind me of the FYROM - Greek Macedonia situation?   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if they close down Niko's business, he should try opening a new one with what he's really good at: selling socks...? ;-) Fut.Perf. 09:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha! The babelfish Greek is fine! I don't get the FYROM-Greek Mk parallel though. As for "selling" socks, I guess you could call it (12) that way... NikoSilver 13:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that I think about it...I don't get the FYROM - Greek Macedonia comparison either. Oh well, it made sense to me then. Προσπάθησα :)   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oson afora to zitima mas, mi nomiseis pos ksexastika. Tha epaneltho molis bro xrono, autes tis meres eimai tromera apasxolimenos. Miskin 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Family name

Re sy mhn arxisoume kai edit war! Den einai katalhksh dhlwtikh katagwghs! Einai h genikh kapoiou onomatos, ayto lew! Kai yparxei protash pio panw pou leei "Exceptionally, some end in -ou, indicating the genitive case of this proper noun for patronymic reasons" --   Avg    20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, siga mhn arxisoume kai edit war gi'ayto! Pantws sto telos exei oles tis katalh3eis, ane3arthta apo thn arxh (opou to 3erw giati egw to'grapsa sxedon olo). Isws prepei na kanoume ligo rephrase gia na 3eka8arizei to 8ema... NikoSilver 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey Niko, have you seen this AfD?: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I -- Clevelander 22:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Niko, I'll make sure not to do this in the future.All the best, Clevelander 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


It might not go thru, read the exceptions.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's always the element of judgement by the admins for other applicable violations, such as WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:POINT and WP:USERNAME. NikoSilver 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Macedonia and other usernames of countries

Funky and Niko, I'd have preferred if this could have been done without the added drama of revert warring, there was really no reason to escalate the thing like this. Fut.Perf. 07:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Fut.Perf. The point is that without edit-warring, there would have been no effective admin intervention and the pictures would still be there in violation of WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:USERNAME, and WP:POINT; unfortunately. Furthermore, I think a WP:RfC would be pertinent, since the user clearly attempts to create an extremely biased, provocative, irredentist, and history-falsifying WP:FORK of Macedonia (or Macedonia (terminology)) through his/her userpage and userpage title (User:Macedonia). NikoSilver 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. First, I was already on the case, so I would surely have noticed the replacement of the images and would have acted accordingly. Second, the political message carried by the user page is really irrelevant to the case. I frankly don't care what opinions about the Macedonian nation he displays there or how he uses the Vergina sun. The current contents (some quotes by 19th-century figures and some links about minority issues) are not particularly offensive. And, to tell you the truth, it isn't looking particularly good for people to be using the technicalities of image copyright in order to get other users in trouble when it's really about the politics. It could easily border on harassment, you know. Fut.Perf. 10:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your being on the case was irrelevant to the WP:USERNAME violation that your second comment seems to miss. This is not a "politics" issue; it is a WP:FORK issue. I would have much less problem with the content if the title of the page was not Macedonia. Anyone can have their personal opinions, but not in an attempt to create confusion regarding those opinions belonging to an entire nation, a region, or a couple of provinces. Other than that, you are right; if the user had a regular username that illustrated the personalized character of his content, then it would indeed be bordering to harassment. But this is not the case. NikoSilver 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's stretching the idea of "fork" a bit; after all, this is why we have separate namespaces on wikipedia. I see however there was that discussion on Wikipedia talk:Username/Archive 1#Names of countries, or of large or disputed regions. Why wasn't that followed up on, back then? Trouble I see is, would that apply also to usernames identical to an ethnic name? I shudder to think what would happen if I touched User:Tajik, User:Azerbaijani, User:Makedonas, User:Ellinas (okay, the latter was a sock anyway, but you get the point.) - Personally, I can't really find these names very problematic. They are silly, for sure, in that they suggest an editor's identityand role here is fully absorbed by identifying with his country/ethnicity and pushing its agenda, but nobody would really be led to think they actually represent their country/ethnicity, would they? And the silliness is just as great for other "patriotic" names like "Iranian Patriot", "Cretanpride", "Cretanforever". BTW, maybe we should move this away from this page, for the moment. Fut.Perf. 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding that whatever counter-argumentation may exist on the country/region-usernames does not bring my attempt to create greater attention down to mere "harassment". I think we are judging things a bit too much from the "experienced" user/surfer POV. My view is that it is indeed a WP:FORK, should an unexperienced surfer try just to click one of the links eg. here; and worse than that, with Wikipedia's signature on it! NikoSilver 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are two categories of usernames: Those with an explicit identical name with a region/country (eg. User:Macedonia, User:Hellenic Republic etc); and the ones that simply derive from these names (like the examples you stated). Personally, I would have no problem forcing both user categories to rename; but the first one is much more applicable. NikoSilver 13:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As for "not followed up on", check User:Winona Gone Shopping's (former User:Alexander 007) block log. NikoSilver 13:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Being a silly sausage", was he, uh? ;-) - Well, anyway, let's try to break the concerns down into their separate components. If I read the old discussion and yours correctly:
  1. People might be mislead into thinking that a user called after a country in some way represents this country, on encountering their signature somewhere.
  2. People might be mislead into taking that user's page for a Wikipedia article about the country, endorsed by the community, on encountering the user page.
  3. The content of the userpage might be inappropriate for some other reason, according to WP:USER.
Number 1 doesn't seem particularly problematic to me. I mean, realistically, this is an environment where other people sign with names like "Can't sleep, Clown will eat me", "Consumed Crustacean", "Otherwise the Tourists Win", or with the names of non-existing grammatical categories. If you encounter, among this mumbo-jumbo, a signature like "Ghana", are you going to assume the Ghanaese government is behind it?
Number 2: could be problematic in principle, but hardly in the case of User:Macedonia. That page has a layout and tone that marks it as clearly very different from an article. And it's got the correct userpage disclaimer too, prominently displayed on the bottom. On that criterion, a thing like User:Hectorian is really more problematic, because it superficially looks like an article. Or that guy who put the whole (deleted) "Misconceptions about Iran" on his userpage. These things all get tolerated.
Remains WP:USER. That page is rather ambiguous about how far one can go about political statements. "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" is not okay - but where does "extensive" start? If Hectorian's quotes about the Greeks are okay, why would a collection of quotes about the Macedonians not be okay? What about User:Asteraki? What about this guy? What about User:Makedonas? (Not to mention Mitsos, of course.)
Anyway, if you're really concerned about the username, the correct avenue would apparently be a username RfC. But I doubt it's worth it. And you'd first have to rewrite the username policy too. Fut.Perf. 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Huuuuuh! I'm an evil sock account with an inflammatory name! This is what you get for worrying about user names too much. And just imagine what I am going to put on my userpage! Mwuahahahaha!!! Epsilon Team 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that explicitly identical usernames to country/region articles should not be created because they are confusing, inflammatory and nonsensical. Provocative content alone can be harmless (like nitration); username alone can be harmless too (like glycerin). It is the combination that creates the Nitroglycerin! And since we can't be pursueing people's pages all the time for nitration-like additions/modifications etc; we might as well deprive them of the glycerine to prevent explosive compounds from existing! NikoSilver 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Losses in Ottoman Empire

I do not believe the article Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I should be deleted but cleaned up. There were huge losses in the Ottoman Empire during WW1. The article is biased because it ignores the massacres of Armenians and other Christians that ended in 1923. The Allied blockade caused food shortages and famine plus the Spanish Flu caused additional losses. The numbers of dead are difficult to determine and are a topic of intense debate.What is need is a person who is familiar with the literature on this topic to step in and clean it up to eliminate the one sided POV that deals only with Muslim losses. The section on military casualties was relevant to the WW1 Casualties article so I included the link.--Woogie10w 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; thank you. So you mean rename I guess. NikoSilver 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename and cleanup to eliminate the one sided POV dealing with losses by one ethnic group. --Woogie10w 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
...In which case you should rephrase your vote accordingly. BTW, did I sound like I was pro-delete in my message in Talk:World War I casualties? NikoSilver 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article

Nikos, the Muslims also suffered, and were subject to many migrations for reasons that didn't have to do with the migrations of others. Why are you insisting that they cannot have a seperate article? You are more than welcome to create another Ottoman casualties during World War I or restructure this article so that it focuses better on this particular Millet. But it is also not fair to say that the losses or casualties of the Turks/Kurds are not important enough to be mentioned in another article. I said this in the last AfD, the ethnic-strife touched upon every Millet, and no-one is perfectly clean - you cannot seriously say that Ottoman Muslims were never ever subject to massacres etc, nor that their losses didn't affect the region in the aftermath of the War.. There is no harm to discussing the losses of other millets. Just assume good faith and keep an eye for POV in that article and that will be good enough. Anyways... Baristarim 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Muslim losses were significant indeed, but not in any significant cited way different from the non-Muslim ones. I consider all relative articles that you propose me to create are forks, unless there is a global academic outcry on those particular religious groups for reasons that don't affect the others too, which I fail to see from the sources you provide. Such an arbitrary religious segmentation of eg. Spanish flu victims is by definition forkish. Again, I don't want the content deleted; I want it included in the broader spectrum that it deserves. When you find such sources differentiating Muslims from non-Muslims and expand it, then you can definitely {{main}} it out of the other broader article (World War I casualties). For now it is a subheading (Ottoman) of a subheading (Ottoman and Muslim) -which is too far for the sources given! NikoSilver 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't get it. Why do you have to start working your way backwards? Why not first expand the existing article and then garner consensus for {{main}}ing it out? I will support when I see adequate differentiated content! (you know how sensitive I am to mass-murder, and that is not hypocritical). NikoSilver 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I hear your point about starting backwards, but you should know that I haven't created this article nor was involved with it too much. You know that I try to focus on other things, and I was primarily busy with Turkey for the last 1.5 months. I suppose that your statement is very valid, but there is not much I can do about it :) Will continue later, I gotta go out to dinner. Cheers! Baristarim 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That was what immediately struck my "FORK-FORK-FORK"-shouting nerve in the first place. If I can find time, I'll try to help in that direction. I suppose that the ones who created it had not spotted the main article (I myself had browsed the WWI article and didn't find it before I linked as an example a similar red title -if you remember- to be thankfully enlightened re its existence by you afterwards). Out with a girl? Good luck! :-) NikoSilver 17:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am leaning toward a delete for that article unless it is cleaned up, the numbers are as soft as shit--Woogie10w 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


for your kind words. However, for this and related topics, where current historical research itself is still not free of oversweeping generalization and hotheadedness, I don't think the wikipedia process can work well. I should have just kept my mouth shut, and saved some aggravation. --Free smyrnan 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Greece in the Middle Ages

Exeis proseksei to arthro Greece in the Middle Ages? Des ti egrapsa stin selida tou. Einai POV-fork tou Roman and Byzantine Greece, dhmiourgimeno apo enan xristi pou prospathei monimws na periorisei tin mesaioniki istoria twn Ellhnwn (des kai ta ypoloipa edits tou se Byzantine Empire kai Template:History of Greece). Lew na to protinoume gia diagrafh. Ti pisteueis? Miskin 12:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think our issues have been resolved with the prompt intervention of other members of the WIKIPEDIAN GREEK CHAUVINIST JUNTA. NikoSilver 14:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAC

Hi! Today I've nominated the article Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria for a featured article, believing it meets all criteria.

This is the article's third nomination (see the previous ones), and because the previous ones received relatively little attention, I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion about it, be it as a vote or a comment, on the article's nomination page.

Thanks! :) TodorBozhinov 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry, but what just happened here [1]??? Such wikilawyering after the AfD is not helpful - if anything, such issues should have been raised during the AfD, or in the talk pages. We talked about this, nobody was stopping the creation of that article. I am reverting the move. The AfD had just closed. Baristarim 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I read your arguments in your post to the admin, and you oversimplified the issue: the issue had always been about its existence as a seperate article - such acts are really not helpful and a bit sneaky, I am sorry to say. Baristarim 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Nikos, what you just did there was really extremely lame - this issue was discussed to death in the AfD, and it closed as keep, and it would have closed as no concensus at worst. You know this issue was debated, and for you to sneak back to an administrator after the AfD and try to present the issue in such a way was downright disruptive. I am quite surprised.. Baristarim 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
And your ethnicization of the issue was very wrong as well. We debated there for hours without regards to ethnicity. For you to go to an admin and basically say "let's discard 'em, they are a bunch of shady nationalists anyways" was extremely inappropriate. You know what the issue was, and you also knew that nobody was stopping anyone from creating another article. Please do not do such unilateral moves again. Nikos, the same argument can also hold (much more appropriately in fact) for this - nearly all third party editors had expressed reservations about the title - should I go ahead and move it? The exact same argument can be made about that poll. So please be careful, such unilateral moves by editors involved waist down in the issue, based upon some misinterpreted phrase from an uninformed administrator, is against the spirit of the wikiprocess. Thanks Baristarim 06:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Niko, i think you ignored the part "if there consensus" by Majorly. Really, these kinds of things do you no favour at all. --A.Garnet 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, all of you - take a short break please so I can repair the cut-n-paste move. Fut.Perf. 15:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Τα δικά μου δικά μου, και τα δικά σου δικά μου!"

Here we had:

  1. Fut.Perf.: [2] Merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, the main article about that part of WWI. We don't currently have separate casualties articles on the other combatant nations. Sure, that alone doesn't mean there couldn't be any; it is in principle a valid topic and might warrant a sub-article of its own if there's enough good material. However, right now the article is so poor in structure, sourcing and balance that it just fails to demonstrate that need. Fut.Perf. 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. MarshallBagramyan: [3]: DeleteArticle remains an obvious fork to the Armenian casualties page which was created in regards to the Armenian Genocide. The information here can easily summarized into a little footnote and be merged into the World War I casualties page.--MarshallBagramyan 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ldingley: [4]: Delete as per Clevelander and Ευπάτωρ Ldingley 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Woogie10w: [5]: Keep I do not believe the article should be deleted but cleaned up. There were huge losses in the Ottoman Empire during WW1. The article is biased because it ignores the massacres of Armenians and other Christians that ended in 1923. The Allied blockade caused food shortages and famine plus the Spanish Flu caused additional losses. The numbers of dead are difficult to determine and are a topic of intense debate. What is need is a person who is familiar with the literature on this topic to step in and clean it up to eliminate the one sided POV that deals only with Muslim losses. The section on military casualties was relevant to the WW1 Casualties article so I included the link.--Woogie10w 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Fadix's (note:unknown natlty): [6]: Very strong Delete We have here another example of a RfD which abuses the system and uses targeted interest to pass an unencyclopedic article as valid. This article is indeed a FORK, as I have explained previously on its talk page. We are not talking here about if an article regarding Ottoman Empires casulties of WWI should be created, because that could be justified, we are debating here on whetever or not this article is a FORK yes or not. It is indeed one. Singling a population based on its religion in an event having affected the entire Ottoman Empire is clearly a FORK. This article has been created as a parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casulties page and seems to be indeed a diverted gimmik to be a "counter answer" to it. I already explained why the Ottoman Armenian casulties article is not a FORK while this one is, but I will once more explain it. Ottoman Empire was at war, any article about Ottoman Empires casulties of WWI accademically speaking will be in that context. There aren't any article on Ottoman casulties and we realise that one about Muslims is created. Baristarim justification doesn't make sense because no, Ottoman Jewish casulties during WWI can not be created in that context without being a FORK. For that to happen, there must be an encyclopedic justification of its existance, such article about casulties can not be an end. We can creat an article about Accadians casulties in the context of the Accadian deportation, this is not a FORK, because such an article will not be an end by itself. On the other hand, we can not creat an article about ethnically 'anglo-saxon' losses of life in the American army in the last years of the second world war at the door of Berlin. That would clearly be a FORK, unless so conscription system has been imposed on place founding a unite on ones anglo-saxonism to then sent on the front. In the context of war, and the context of the article, it would be like creating an article on the casulties of people with blue eyes during the American war of independence. Having said that, I don't think it is difficult to understand why the Ottoman Armenian casulties is not a FORK, it is not because there were measures imposed against the Armenians which led to those casulties. The Christians and Jews were conscripted in the Ottoman army as well as the Alawis etc., the situation of war as justification, creating an article and singling the Muslims is definitly FORK. I don't expect my words to change anything, since I am convinced that those having voted keep for the most part clearly understand why the article is FORK. Fad (ix) 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ; and even
  6. Free smyrnan (who identifies as a Turk): [7] :Keep, Rename, and Expand I support renaming the article to take out Muslim and also expanding the article to reflect the changing demographics of the OE over the preceding 50 years or so. There is a major encyclopedic topic buried in all this hate-mongering: The Ottomans had been in non-stop war-fare and military actions for far earlier. The result is that the stub of the OE left at the time of WWI is already filled with refugees, war-time orphans and a dearth of men of military age. This is the background against which the OE participates in WWI, not in isolation. The change in numbers due to the previous several decades is significant enough to change the demographics of the Ottoman lands, let alone the social and economic fabric of the land. Any discussion of the casualties of the WWI does not make sense without this background of a country with most of its strength already sapped. WWI is a time of great divisiveness in the OE - when the Millet system collapsed etc. I think this is the reason why the name of the article is "Ottoman Muslim Casualties". But, few as they may be, some actually believed in a different reality and died for it. This article totally neglects the existence of hundreds of non-Muslim officers who participated in the war, on the Ottoman side and lie, buried with their Muslim brethren in "şehitlik"s. Mostly military doctors, a few combat positions, but they are there, along with common infantry, who can also be traced. The OE may not have been successful in its attempt to forge a nation-state, but it does not mean these people did not exist and die for it. And I, for one, consider ignoring them to be deeply irrespectful of their memory. Aside from the respect issue, this is also significant since the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire was a relatively recent reform (I believe 1908) and is part of the reform attempts of the early parliamentary monarchy period. Gallipoli.... What a human story and one that does not get mentioned at all in this article. How can you have an article about Ottoman casualties of WWI and not mention that the 1919 graduating class of Galatasaray does not exist due to Gallipoli? Again, put it into context and show that an entire nation's intelligentsia perished in the war. 1,000,000 or so casualties in the WWI when the newly founded Republic of Turkey had 13 million total population is what puts the meaning of WWI into context. To wrap up... This is a major topic. An article about the Ottoman casualties of WWI should exist. It should have the proper context showing the change in the demographics of the land due to the previous several decades of constant warfare and military action. It should not be about Muslims only and should not trample upon the memories of the few that actually did believe in a multi-national OE, but should be about all that fought on the Ottoman side. It should also show, rather than just numbers, the meaning and context of the numbers. -- only then you can put it into context of what a total annihilation has been lived through in these lands. Best regards. --Free smyrnan 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I dare all accusers above point to me ONE non-WP:COI-vote to counter ANY of those SIX. I dare you explain to me how TWO S vs ONE R (in PGG), can be compared to ZERO K vs SIX R. Unless we want to reprimand users for their extensive flooding and raiding and the disrespectful misinterpretation of WP:CON, I feel that all of you here (except FP of course) owe me an apology. Shame. NikoSilver 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What six Nikos? Are you serious??? Three of those "votes" also fall under COI, since it is very well known that the issue had always been the existence of that article seperately. Stop this, it is very disrespectful - you knew what the argument was. There is no 0 vs 6. The move you just did and trying to circumvent the wikiprocess by disregarding the time they spent discussing the issue was not appropriate. You should have raised the issue in the talk pages. It had also been explained that nobody was stopping you from writing a new article. There are many users who are unhappy with the title of PGG, and they have voiced their opinions here and there but are simply too afraid to show up in there, or can't be bothered to do so in the first place. COI?? What COI? Conflict of interest of what? Should my edits to Turkey be discounted because I have a conflict of interest in seeing the article of my birthplace as FA? You cannot be serious... Baristarim 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Which 3? Show me and then discount them too. You'll have 0 vs the 3 remaining. NikoSilver 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Also FP made an analysis regardless of COI in the article's talk. The result was move. NikoSilver 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally in PGG there were 4 times the votes for keep title (regardless of COI), and 2 vs 1 if we don't discount COI. NikoSilver 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, I really don't like your tone, so change it. NikoSilver 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and congrats for the Turkey FA (edits are not !votes). NikoSilver 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Niko, what you did would be akin to me contacting an admin and asking him to ignore the wishes of Greek editors in pgg and ask him to rename it. We obviously acknowledge two views on that article, that is why it is still there. In this case, you completely dismissed the other view (which prevailed through an afd where we actually have to justify our vote, as opposed to a superficial straw poll) and got it renamed. It is insulting behaviour and completely unnaceptable. --A.Garnet 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time you respond without reading my comments and addressing them, I'm gonna be posting the same answer of mine:

Also FP made an analysis regardless of COI in the article's talk. The result was move. NikoSilver 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't ignoring Just Turks in this. I was ignoring also Greeks and Armenians and Georgians. NikoSilver 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to point out the same reasoning can apply there. In fact, now that I have checked, five of the six definitely fall into one of the categories you described in your post to that admin's page, and all have edited extensively directly related articles for a long time. Which leaves us with "one" shaky neutral and impartial vote - that doesn't warrant such a unilateral vote. AfD is part of the wikiprocess.
Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest again, there is nothing in there that warrants the reasoning you used in your post to that admin.
I am sorry but expressions like ~" we shouldn't reward them for flooding the pages" is also not civil and very disrespectful to the contributions of other editors.
As for the PGG... Nearly every impartial editor that came by the page voiced concerns over the title - even in the first RfC of the article. There is no such thing as COI in these cases, nor is there no. X v. no. Y excluding COI.

From WP:COI:

[edit] Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Are you still going to blame others for being a bit sceptical? I don't mean any offense, but it seems like you made statements about "COI" without reading the policy itself. I don't think that it was your intention and you tried to convey the msg that there was some sort of POV dispute because of nationality or religion, but that was not appropriate. There was no "consultation with the admin" a) he is not the ArbCom b) he practically said "take care of it yourselves" - his comment that "use the move button" was, IMO, a bit sarcastic to begin with! You should have consulted much more before doing such a move. If you got the impression that I was being uncivil, I apologize, but what just went down was a bit disturbing. Baristarim 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For flooding, check:
(edit conflict) Seems like I'd better add a few clarifying remarks regarding my stance here. First, I'd recommend dropping the talk of "COI". COI, in wiki jargon, refers to people writing about their own companies or websites and such; we don't normally apply it to people working on articles that touch on the sensitivities of their nations or ethnicities. We are all prejudiced when it comes to those, but that's normally not a reason to discard people's opinions in those matters. And when I quoted people's nationalities the other day in the PGG case, it wasn't about "discounting" votes from those nationalities, but about noting the fact that there was a near-total rigidity of frontlines. That was fortunately not the case here, at least not to such an extent. - About Niko's listing above, it's not quite correct (if we stick to his logic for a moment), because at least Fadix and MarshallBagrayam are certainly Armenians too and have been very active on Armenian disputes for a long time. - About the closing of this AfD, I believe the admin acted correctly, although he might have mentioned the merge/move proposal as an option quite strongly suggested by the discussion, which I believe it was. Fut.Perf. 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Can you please explain how 'rigidity of frontlines' doesn't apply in the AfD?
  • I apologize about the two, the userpages that I checked don't say anything. It doesn't change anything though.
  • Agree with all the rest. NikoSilver 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You clearly divided Muslims, Azeris, Turks on one side, and the Christians, Armenians and Greeks on one side - which was very wrong since there were many comments from many other users of varying nationalities. Such a division is not appropriate. Baristarim 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No. Your article divides on religion, I just did what I thought was compatible per PGG and other precedents. NikoSilver 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not arbocentrism. If you have a method of dividing the Muslim population into Turks and Kurds, please share them in the talk page, and if it is sound, I will strongly support the article to be split into "Turkish", "Azeri", "Kurdish" et al casualties. This was also explained in the AfD, and nobody was able to address this issue satisfactorily. Baristarim 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's exactly what I oppose: your arbitrary division of the population! There are absolutely no casualty reasons that don't apply to everybody else! The opposite is not true. NikoSilver 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I type with ten tingers and can write very fast, that's the only reason why my posts are long sometimes. :) Baristarim 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't let your fingers run faster than your eyes. Read. NikoSilver 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't write before you make the relevant research: "6" "non-COI"?? Baristarim 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If you agree with what FP said about the closing of the AfD, why did you move it to begin with? Baristarim 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
He also said there should have been a comment about merge/move. I did that merge/move (per the comment I was given in his talk). NikoSilver 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
He said "get off my back, and deal with it yourselves". "You can move it if there is concensus, just use the move button" was a very clever way of saying that. I moved it back to its original state, and you should have raised the issue in the talk pages. "Move than discuss later" is not the standard. Baristarim 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
He said all that huh? Your "original state" is both biased and against consensus. The AfD is the proper place to discuss that, and boooooy how much some of us did. "Move than discuss later" is your illustrus domain, or should I say: "let them disagree, I move where I want!" NikoSilver 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No. The AfD closed as "keep". Period. Any interpretations that you can make of it doesn't concern anyone else. If you would like to discuss any issues, take it to the talk page. I will break the redirect at "Ottoman Muslim" and start a new article this week.
COI? :) Thanks a lot for giving me so much (+3Okb!!) space on your user domain. :)))
"He said "can be moved if there is concensus - just the use the move button" is a very diplomatic way of saying "deal with it yourselves" and "use the move button" is nothing but sarcasm (funny though :)). Is that what you based your move on? A phrase from an admin? Please... Baristarim 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm tired trying to reason with someone who apparently can't see there was a consensus stemming from that talk. Bye now. NikoSilver 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that there was concensus (supported by myself as well) that there should be a different article for "Ottoman" - but there was not a concensus at all for moving the current page - there is a big difference. That's my point. I understand what you are saying, however I also feel that you misinterpreted the concensus as warranting a fast page move. There was no such concensus - the correct move would have been to start a new article, move the relevant content from the older article to the new article and clean them up... Baristarim 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I (and others too) didn't misinterpret anything. All move-voters and many keep-voters protested on the word "Muslim" which is what I removed, not to mention many delete votes (exactly for the same reason). For the rest, check the AfD text thoroughly as I and Fut.Perf. did, and this. NikoSilver 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Identifies as a Turk??

I am a Turk.

I am wondering why you (if it is you) have felt the need to put this qualifier in the above discussion? Two things bother me about it, the first is the language "identifies as a Turk", the second is that nobody else's comments have an ethnicity associated. Regards, --Free smyrnan 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me, and sorry if it sounded odd. I guess I wanted to stress that others may identify as something and not be (although I don't exactly remember why I wrote it -it was late and I was tired). I didn't mean you of course. You know I know better than that... :-) NikoSilver 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)