User talk:Tasoskessaris

[edit] WikiBook

Hi Sir, I think you should write a WikiBook about analog signal processing. You would be able to reference that as text so all the students can look at it. Then we can get help for homeworks and labs.

Thanks. Good idea. Let's see if I can find the time. But thanks I appreciate it. Dr.K. 14:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arxaia

Συγχαρητήρια για τις γνώσεις σου της αρχαίας ελληνικής. Politis 10:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ πολύ Πολίτη. Πολύ ευγενικό εκ μέρους σου. Dr.K. 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers

Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate that you took the time to let me know, it's very kind of you. It's a great topic and I am really interested in it. I will definitely take part. Take care. Ciao. Dr.K. 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the survey and for your nice summation of the issue. Would you be interested in supporting one of the three proposed options (or indicating a ranking of choices, where applicable)? Ευχαριστώ, Imladjov 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Imladjov for your nice feedback. I might add I was also very impressed by the clarity of your arguments. Thank you for the reminder. I will vote soon. Take care. (Παρακαλώ). Dr.K. 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up

Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Imladjov. The mediator provided us with a reasonable decision. I will participate in the new survey as well. Thanks for letting me know. I think that the current climate supports proposition 2, but 3 is the eventual destination. If we can find means to speed it up it will be even better. Dr.K. 14:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Please note that it now appears that only redirects can ensure that either option is searchable, so I am leaning towards the former option 3. Perhaps you can test the search yourself. Looking forward to your feedback, Imladjov 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Option 3 is my preferred option as well. but the recommendation suggested we go with option 2 first pending consensus on 3. Even though the mediation cabal decision is non binding shouldn't we just follow through with 2 and take a poll on 3 at a later date, as per the recommendation? Dr.K. 15:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If the recommendation had been more explicit on enforcing option 2 (A), we should follow it. But it foresees the possibility of consensus about option 3 (B), and I thought that if we can reach it now, everything would be simpler. Otherwise (keeping option 2) we would have to create two sets of redirects instead of just one. So I am wating to see what the overall feedback would be. Imladjov 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll follow through soon. Thanks again. Take care. Dr.K. 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:AngelokastroKerkyras.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AngelokastroKerkyras.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jusjih 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not orphaned. I just used it in the Corfu article.Dr.K. 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your very quick response. (Many other uploader that I have asked have never responded.) Once no longer orphaned, we have a much better chance to claim fair use.--Jusjih 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you very much. Dr.K. 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Geia sou. Euxaristo gia ta ellinika onomata sto arthro me ton mixanismo ton Antikuthiron.Na exei kai ligo aroma Elladas,sosta ;)?

Οχι παίζουμε. Ελληνικός είναι ο μηχανισμός, τι να κάνουμε. Ευχαριστώ για το μήνυμα. Γειά χαρά στη πατρίδα. Τάσος.

[edit] Image Panagoulisontrial.jpg

I notice you have uploaded Image:Panagoulisontrial.jpg using a licence that requires it to be presented "with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above", but there is none provided. Could you please provide it. Thanks. William Avery 07:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This picture appeared in many newspapers in Greece and abroad during the dictatorship and after. However I do not recall a specific publication name at this time. I can only recall that I saw it. If that creates a problem then we can change it to some other suitable category. Dr.K. 13:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fairusein tag is the only one that could be applicable. Three other images claiming fair use on the Panagoulis page were recently uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, which is what took me to that page. William Avery 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is a less optimal one Fairuseunsure as well. The problem is as far as I understand the fairusein tag has to be repeated three times because it can only be used one article at a time. except if we ignore the word article in the tag and include multiple article titles. Dr.K. 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I got it. There is a fairuse2,3, or multiple article tag. I'll use the multiple. Thanks for the suggestion. Dr.K. 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Walter A. Shewhart.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Walter A. Shewhart.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walter A. Shewhart image

The image added to the Shewhart article is a photo of W. Edwards Deming. Leaders100 04:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks I'll correct it. Dr.K. 04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the correction. Leaders100 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for the courtesy. Take care. Dr.K. 04:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Achilleasthniskon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Achilleasthniskon.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Corfustspyridonchurch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Corfustspyridonchurch.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Palaiaanaktora.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palaiaanaktora.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine names

People not familiar with Byzantium might tend to think that Marcus Aurelius and Comnenus were both Roman emperors, even though the latter clearly never used Latin to write his name and he definitely was not a Roman Emperor. I think you'll find Comnenus definitely was a Roman Emperor. Roydosan 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In the strict sense of the word Roman yes, but not a Latin Caesar. Dr.K. 16:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And definitely did not write his name in Latin but in Greek Κομνηνός, that transliterates in English as Komnenos not Comnenus. Why use a Latin filter as a surrogate to transliteration? It actually distorts and latinizes artificially an essentially Greek entity. ODB does a much better job at this task. Dr.K. 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Andrew for letting me know. That's a great idea. Take care. Dr.K. 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page, Dr K. I'm sure we shall see one another again on Wikipedia! Andrew Dalby 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Tasos (and, for that matter, Andrew) and for your continued contributions. Given the current experience, I doubt this is the last we'll hear of this, but keep up the good fight. Imladjov 12:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It is amazing that people that died more than 500 years ago can still be controversial, isn't it? Allow me to thank you for your excellent points as well. It is probably not the last we'll hear of this matter, but the seed has been sown now. Let's hope it will find fertile ground and that the Byzantines will one day be recognized and treated in their own right rather than in the shadow of Rome. I was really pleased realizing that I was not the only editor feeling this way. Keep up the good work. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What can I say Valentinian. It isn't very often that I start a reply this way but your usual brilliant way of summing up the salient points of a debate made me lose my words for a while. Now that I recovered somewhat I agree completely. This whole debate reads like the United Nations of controversies. It has elements of historical and cultural wrongs and distortions. Onomatological distortions to enhance and cover up the historical and cultural distortions etc. I guess that's what you get when a greater Empire splits in two. The kids start fighting for the inheritance, and history, culture and onomatology try to catch up centuries later! Your contribitions to the debate were brilliant and a real pleasure to contemplate. Thank you very much for your kind words and believe me, coming from you, it is a great honour indeed. Take care for now and au revoir. Dr.K. 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, such words are far too grand, but I think the condition you mentioned is contagious. For a while anyway. Your observations on the struggle for inheritance between the components of a former entity are, alas, all too correct. Some years ago I visited Lithuania as part of a multinational group and our trip included a visit to Trakai Castle and a lecture by a local custodian on the rudimentary history of Lithuania. Halfway through, I noticed a Belarusian from our group, a history student like myself, showing great signs of frustration, but finally uttering "but this is Belarusian history". It had never really occurred to him that more than one nation could share the same prehistory. This experience gave me somewhat of a shock and made me take a second glance at a lot of Danish history. In Scandinavia we have a similar debate between Danes and Norwegians since our ancestors, for better or worse, shared four hundred years of common history; was Peder Tordenskjold, one of our greatest heroes, a Dane, a Norwegian or perhaps both or neither? On important days, both Denmark and Norway place wreaths on his tomb. Or Ludvig Holberg whose plays are loved in both countries? Or what about Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis who is praised in both Poland, Lithuania and Belarus? Each nation tries to monopolize him as "one of our own". These and other examples made me realize that in fact more than one nation can look up to the same heroes of the past and secondly, that we should judge any bygone age on its own terms, rather than trying anachronistically to make the past fit our own current reality or any other age for that matter. Trying to parcel up a common past is particularly damaging and leads to absurd results. It is both an unrewarding and futile work which only destroys what was an integral whole in its day. The only thing accomplished by doing so is killing the patient, which indeed almost occurred in Danish historiography for several reasons. Only during the last 20 years have scholars begun reintegrating the histories of the different areas that once made up the country of my ancestors, and this work is only in its beginning. All Danish schoolchildren are tought that Rundetårn, Rosenborg or Børsen as masterpieces built by King Christian IV but only rarely do their teachers mention his buildings in Norway or Scania, although the church in Kristianstad is a masterpiece and was one of his favourite buildings. It took me some time, but I have come to the conclusion that closing our eyes to parts of our past or trying to make the past fit a current reality is just as damaging as fighting like jealous children over the family inheritance. Unfortunately, these solutions has been used far too many times in the past and it will take a lot of work to mend what was once broken. And centuries old slander and misunderstandings can make any situation even worse. Perhaps both the Eastern Empire and Denmark-Norway will one day get the chance to be judged on their own terms. I very much hope so and I think the wind is changing. My respects again, Sir, and take care. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. A great background story to contemplate in the context of our debate. The wealth of historical material presented and the apt analogies will provide a tremendous wellspring of ideas for the future, as well as information about a part of Scandinavian History I was not very familiar with but I always wanted to investigate. I absolutely agree that the past deserves to be recognised for what it was. The problem is as you say that there are sometimes too many squabbling inheritors. Some can't even come to terms that the unit (Kingdom or Empire) has broken up. So they view the new parts using the coloured lens of the status quo ante. This can take many forms. It can, as in your examples, simply take the form of (benign?) neglect. By simply not mentioning something as for instance the church in Kristianstad, we convey the message that we not they are the the real inheritors of the past. This classifies as selective memory and it is a memory filtering method and an instrument of historical distortion. Other types of filters, always used as agents of distortion, include onomatological filtering methods. I will not go further into this territory as the very recent debate includes some great examples of such filters. Thank you very much as always for your great insight and I hope that, as you mentioned, we can help the changing wind keep the proper (unfiltered) direction. Take care for now and thanks for the great examples. Tasos (Dr.K. 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Thanks, I can only agree with your conclusion. Just for the sake of clarity, one of my examples was slightly incorrect. I know Čiurlionis is praised in Lithuania and I've heard the same is the case in Belarus, however I'm not sure about Poland. The example I was thinking about was Adam Mickiewicz who wrote a major works in Polish literature, but Pan Tadeusz begins with the words "Oh Lithuania ...". Mickiewicz is famous in virtually all of the former Poland-Lithuania. In the Danish case, you are pretty close, but it is more than neglect; it is collective denial. It is the result of a series of collective shocks following the wars of 1658 and 1864 and the dissolution of the union in 1814. The two latter events were the most influential and particularly the Second War of Schleswig played a major role. The war in 1658 was bad, but the events in 1814 and 1864 reduced Denmark(-Norway) from a regional power to virtually nothing. In fact, Napoleon III suggested to carve up the remainder between Prussia and Sweden, and many doomed the Danish people to assimilation. All in all, a very rough awakening. From 1864-1943/45 Denmark led a pro-German foreign policy for no other reason than preserving national independence, although the vast majority of the population was antagonistic or hostile towards Germany, most notably because of its treatment of its Danish minority. There were many positive results of the "Hvad udad tabes skal indad vindes" attitude ("what is lost outside must be regained inside"), including the foundations of the modern Danish welfare state, advancements in agriculture (Danish bacon) and the reclaiming of moors in Jutland which had been abandoned following the plague five hundred years earlier. The flip side of this mentality was that many people closed their eyes and ears, and ignored any aspects of history which couldn't be easily mended into their own reality as a minor nation. The South Jutland issue was the exception but the reunification in 1920 pretty much closed this chapter as well. This reaction has lasted until recently; whenever somebody dared to take an interest in the "missing" aspects of our history, chances were that the individual would be labelled as a nationalist, irrendetist or even worse. On the other side of the border; Norway has become increasingly self-aware, which means that the Norwegians have become more focused on their own aspects of our common history (although it is now considered somewhat bad taste there to refer to the former union as a "four hundred year long night"). Scania was (rather brutally) assimilated into Sweden and it is a recent development there to be interested in the region's Danish past. In Sweden, such interests are still associated with regionalism (or even separatism which is clearly off the mark.) The reasons for filtering / distorting (or even rewriting) history have been many, but the results produced are rarely pretty or accurate. In the Danish case, we still need to eradicate some of the ghosts that haunted our ancestors. I'm Danish and a student of history, but I don't think I have ever seen a list of the monarchy's five largest cities in e.g. 1800, now you know why. We should let the past speak for itself and be so fair as to judge it on its own terms and standards, rather than twisting and distorted it in order to apply later inventions or biases. That's my two cents anyway. See you around. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Valentinian, for this excellent historical review. I didn't know that so much historical conflict existed in a place such as Scandinavia. I always had an image of it being the Switzerland of Northern Europe or better. A place with great tolerance and advanced social and political structures with a minimum of constraints imposed on the individual. Such a place, in my mind could not possibly harbour such strife at any historical juncture. Now I have to re-evaluate Switzerland as well! It just shows that history was not particularly kind to any part of Europe in particular (save maybe Switzerland?) and no place comes out unscathed if you just let the time span become long enough. All countries from Roman times onward had their own share of tragedies and wrongs inflicted on them. It's a new understanding that I possess now, thanks to your analysis. Thanks for taking the time and I am sure I will analyze your historical perspective for some time to come. You are right on your conclusion. Let the past speak for itself. Sometimes this voice is very subtle and very weak. The voice of the past is not a human voice, for everyone is long dead and gone. The voice of the past is the subtle voice of History, names, customs, art etc. We should treat the historical past like archaelogists treat a newly found tomb. Tenderly and with surgical precision and using the right tools. Attention is needed even in the smallest details. Only then our analysis will make the voice of the past audible again. The past can speak to us, if only we give it a fair chance and we must; because it is our ancestors and even us eventually. Our identity, our culture etc. All the best and I'm sure I'll see you again. Thanks for giving me the opportunity and the new ideas to contemplate. Tasos (Dr.K. 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Corfu holocaust

Kudos for the cleanup!! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed on Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors, that people keep referring to some "ODB" naming convention. However, ODB redirects to a ...Wu Tang Clan rapper. Could you please direct me to the WP article on the ODB naming convention. I mean, what is it about, anyway?? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually thank you Michali for the excellent research. It was very interesting for me to find out the name of the collaborator and all the other details as well as the great citations that verified my sources. Also congratulations for your great work in the other articles as well, (junta, Velos mutiny etc.).

Now to ODB. Check this link: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and this: ODB. I'm sure you have watched this great debate unfold in many different areas of Wikipedia. To cut the story short there are people insisting on rendering the Byzantine Emperor names according to the old fashioned Latin based convention ex. Paleologus and there are others that prefer the new scholarship standard, the ODB, that renders them directly from the Greek version such as Palaiologos and thus it is truer to the actual name. The first time, a couple of months ago, through mediation it was decided we would use the modern standard of ODB to render the names, without distorting them through the Latin version. Well that made a few people unhappy and now we are in the middle of another debate/vote/moratorium, etc. You get the idea! If you want you can actually vote in the matter as well. Take care for now and thanks again for your kind comments. Ευχαριστώ πολύ και θα τα ξαναπούμε. Τάσος. Dr.K. 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually do any research about Kollas, I had stumbled upon his story while working on Romaniotes. A corfiote friend of mine reminded it to me the other day. There is actually a major street in Corfu named "Kollas street" or something although there might be a chance of it being named after a different Kollas.

As for ODB, thanks for the information. I actually went ahead and made a stub about it: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (you might care to improve that one!). It might be useful for techies like myself who have no idea about canonical scholarly reference material. And the funny thing is, the rapper now has the word "oxford" on his article.

Thanks for your kind words. Keep up the good work yourself! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A rapper connected to Byzantium, that's Wikipedia for you. Excellent idea to create the article. Let's see how this can be expanded. I hope we don't go into edit wars in the article reflecting the edit wars of the Byzantine onomatology. Time will tell I guess. Anyway thanks for the info and take care. Dr.K. 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good addition, nice work. Jkelly 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Very kind of you. I really appreciate it. Take care. Dr.K. 17:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karamanlis

Γειά σου Τάσσο. Γράφω για να σου γνωστοποιήσω ότι η σελίδα για τον Κωνσταντίνο Καραμανλή βρίσκεται στα όρια του flame/revert war τις τελευταίες μέρες. Η συμβολή σου θα ήταν ουσιαστική για να αποκατασταθεί η αντικειμενικότητα (έχω κάνει και ο ίδιος κάποια edit με την ip 212.251.125.63, όπως την προσθήκη της εκστρατείας λάσπης εναντίον του Καραμανλή από την Στάζι). Aλλά όπως φαίνεται, το μένος των βασιλοφρόνων εναντίον του Καραμανλή, ανταγωνίζεται επάξια εκείνο της Στάζι. :-) AvianFluke 10:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Γειά σου AvianFluke. Ευχαριστώ για το μήνυμα. Δεν είχα καιρό να δω τις αλλαγές στο άρθρο λεπτομερώς κι' έτσι δεν έχω σχηματίσει πλήρη γνώμη. Πάντως συμφωνώ με τις δικές σου τις απόψεις στις τελευταίες δύο εισαγωγές που έκανες και που ήταν και οι μόνες που μπόρεσα να εξετάσω. Πάντως μην νομίζεις ότι πάντοτε οι διάφοροι συντάκτες το κάνουν από κάποιο σκοπό. Αν κοιτάξεις την ιστορία του άρθρου θα δεις ότι υπάρχουν συντάκτες που πάντα προσπαθούν να κατευνάσουν τους τόνους του άρθρου επικαλούμενοι εγκυκλοπαιδικούς λόγους κλπ. Αν υπάρξει συμβιβασμός οι τόνοι κατεβαίνουν σε κάποιο μέσο όρο χωρίς περαιτέρω συντακτικούς πολέμους. Πάντως θα κοιτάξω για τυχόν απαράδεκτες αλλαγές στο μέλλον. Γειά και πάλι και τα ξαναλέμε. Τάσος. Dr.K. 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well said, Τάσο. Cheers, Rastapopoulos 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message. All in a day's work I guess. Take care for now. Dr.K. 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects and misspellings

Hi,

Regarding student portests, just so you know, one valuable use of redirects is to compensate for obvious spelling errors. As a rule, one shouldn't endeavor to make a redirect for every conceivable mangling of letters in any article title; but, if one already exists for whatever reason, there is no need to delete it. More narrowly, there are only three valid reasons listed for speedy deleting redirects, together with other general reasons for speedy deletion (WP:CSD). This case did not fall under any of those criteria. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Great but the criteria mentioned implausible errors:Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects that were created recently: Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. and portest seemed implausible and was created recently. Anyway if you want to keep it, no problem. Dr.K. 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi ή μάλλον γεια σου! Απ'ότι είδα τα ελληνικά είναι η μητρική σου γλώσσα οπότε ευελπιστώ ότι θα με καταλάβεις. Το όνομά μου είναι Κώστας αλλά χρησιμοποιώ το account μια φίλης μου μόνιμα (εξ ου και το "Ξανθή"). Απ'ότι είδα έκανες κάποιες ψιλοδιορθώσεις στο άρθρο μου για την Immacolata. Χαίρομαι που κάποιος ασχολήθηκε περαιτέρω με το άρθρο και δη Έλληνας! Αυτά από μένα, αν ποτέ θελήσεις κάτι μη διστάσεις να μου στείλεις μήνυμα!

Κώστας -- Xanthi22 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Congratulations for writing such a great article. I'm a great fan of Clive Barker and Weaveworld in particular. I like the way Clive uses names to create atmosphere. I was going to work some more on the article but I got busy. Maybe one day you can expand on Clive's reasons for giving Magdalene and Hag their names. Anyway take care and happy writing! Dr.K. 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constantinople patriarchs

As regards your edit summary ("rev. ODB standard. Byzantine Emperor debate is a precedent. Opening a separate debate for Patriarchs is waste of time and redundant."): I do not want to start an edit war, so I shall stop, but pushing a consensus gathered on one matter over other matters is not a good behaviour, imho.

Farewell.--Semioli 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Semioli if you feel bad about it. I'm tired from all this as well. But Patriarchs' names are even worse that Emperors. Because they also happened to be Orthodox and Orthodoxy is Eastern, not Latin. Anyway thank you for being a gentleman and in this spirit I bid you farewell too. Dr.K. 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torture Chamber

Hi, just commenting on your Torture chamber edits. The history page for the article is full of saves every couple of minutes. Please try using the "Show preview" button instead of "Save page", otherwise the history becomes full and too hard to use. (edit: forgot signature) -Maelin 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good point. I'll try to follow it. Except that sometimes ,(more than sometimes actually), the idea (or the correction) comes soon after I saved! That's what happened at Bommervik as well. As well I have the Firefox browser problem. Now I avoid to do big edits. I do more but smaller ones, so that it doesn't cut off. Check Bommersvik's history to see a few browser malfunctions that I wrote about in the edit summary. Anyway I'm glad you pointed this out since I wanted to talk about the Firefox to someone. Take care. Dr.K. 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Abdullah. I guess we are talking about translation and transliteration. Dr.K. 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

This article is nominated for deletion. I thought you might be interested in expressing your opinion on the talk page of that article.66.233.19.170 04:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Even though I am not an expert I'll give it a thought. Take care. Dr.K. 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KerkyraDimarheio.jpg listed for deletion

Hi. I notice that you have uploaded Image:KerkyraDimarheio.jpg.JPG. It looks so much like the above image that I thought for a second it was the same one. Great work. I think Image:The Gorgon at Corfu Museum.jpg could use some cropping, however. Jkelly 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know better than that ;-). I just found the right angle, I honestly thought it was not available anymore due to construction. Plus I had to wait for all the tourists and passersby to leave, for a clean shot. But thanks I appreciate the feedback. Take care. Dr.K. 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The angle is perfect. And you have lots more, it seems. That's great. Please consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons instead, so that all the projects can use them. Jkelly 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything to help the project. Can I upload the same pics to Commons? And if so I guess I have to have a commons login separately. How do I upload them to the Corfu pics in Commons? Please let me know. Thanks. Dr.K. 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As of now, we still need separate accounts for different projects (this is being fixed). Once you've done that, uploading to Commons works pretty much exactly as it does here. The only difference is that Commons has an extensive category system. So you'll want to add [[Category:Corfu]] in the text field of your upload (I'll help sort them further if you'd like). Commons also has gallery pages, so if you'd like to present an image gallery, you can edit commons:Corfu just like editing an article here. If you upload the same image there as here, you should note that here with {{NowCommons}}. I think that's everything one needs to know. Jkelly 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a try. Dr.K. 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! Jkelly 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is rendering for me just fine. I think it is probably a browser cache problem on your end. Try clearing your cache. Jkelly 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. It works now. I appreciate all the help. Take care. Dr.K. 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metapolitefsi

Hello, thanks for your kind words. Actually, I kind of agree that the article is a bit verbose (albeit in a pleasant and smart way), so I think that it should be tweeked a little. I peeked at Wikipedia:Summary style and it does make some good points. I mean, as a Greek, the article suits me perfectly and I find it quite a good read, but what would an eg Australian think of the matter? So, maybe the tag should go -personally I believe such tags should go to talk pages, as they don't concern the reader but the editors- but maybe you should work on it a little more. Btw, I posted my comment because I don't like people complaining about other wikipedians' work without giving at least an effort to improve it. If I was active in editing the article I'd go ahead on my own, but I'm not, and it's exams period for me. Anyway, keep up the good work!

Oh, and by the way, I think this is in order:

		The Epic Barnstar
		DrK is awarded this barnstar as a recognition for the hard work he has put to present post-war Greek history in Wikipedia, creating many long-missed and well-written articles. DrK should also be praised about his efforts on articles about Greek history in general. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GreekPresidents

Greetings. What's your opinion of this template? There are two minor flaws, I think: one, the current flag wasn't used between 1975 and 1978, but I think it's safe to gloss over that; two, Papadopoulos named himself president in 1973, though that was during the military dictatorship; I don't know if we should mention him. Also, a better title might perhaps be found. Anyway, since you know much more about the subject than I do, please give it a look and tell me your opinion before I start putting it on the presidents' pages. Thank you. Biruitorul 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Personally I'm not a big fan of the box. Karamanlis was not always a president, therefore putting his picture in a presidential box is misleading. I think that's a major flaw. The other major flaw is as you mentioned we have to put Papadopoulos in such a box. And why not Pinochet? That would be a travesty. I think we should remove the box altogether. It actually doesn't fit the article and the information in it can be found in other sections within the article. Dr.K. 09:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To address your two main concerns: one, Karamanlis was prime minister as well, and I do plan on making a template with prime ministers. However, he was president twice, and the template refers to heads of state--presidents--not heads of government (prime ministers). Anyway, have a look at the equivalent templates in the Greek and German Wikipedias. Two, I'm thinking of expanding the template to include the periods of Monarchy and military rule, just so we can cover the Papadopoulos issue. By the way, Pinochet does appear in the Chile Presidents template: [1], because he was in fact President of Chile. In conclusion: thank you for your response and I will work to improve it. Biruitorul 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added in the Kings and the Junta. Does it look better to you now? Biruitorul 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek history project

Hi! You'll see some contributions of mine in metapolitefsi. Something else now:

In my Userpage I expressed my thoughts about not having any Wiki-project working on Greek topics, while users from other countries are far more active. User:Argos'Dad read my thoughts and expressed his interest in participating in a project concerning the Greek history. Check User talk:Yannismarou/Thoughts. After that response I went through history projects in Wikipedia. There aren't many of them, but I think it is an interesting idea and I hope it will not be difficult to recruit members.
I think we could use as a model Wikipedia:WikiProject History of India. Have a look, when you have time. I believe that, if we decide it, during the Weekend I can start setting the page of the Wikiproject. And then we must start recruiting and organizing (main goals, plans, templates, priorities, rating article, possibly peer-reviewing-I like peer-reviewing articles!, ways of collaboration, topics, possible task forces [ancient, medieval, modern Greece] etc.).
I see you are very interested in history topics. What do you think about this plan ? Are you interesting in participating ? Do you think we can recruit members? If I start the page in the next 2-3 days may I count on you?--Yannismarou 08:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Το ξεκίνησα! Στη σελίδα διαλόγου του project (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece) θα δεις τις προτάσεις μου και τις σχέσεις μου για το μέλλον. Άλλωστε, ελπίζω ότι από τη στιγμή της δημιουργίας του το project θα φύγει από τα χέρια του και θα αγκαλιαστεί και από όλους χρήστες, που θα του προσφέρουν τη δική τους δυναμική. Αυτός είναι ο στόχος μου. Να μη μείνει ένα μνημειακό δείγμα χωρίς ζωή.

Ελπίζω και εσύ να αγκαλιάσεις το project και να συνεισφέρεις όσο μπορείς. Οποιαδήποτε συνεισφορά, οπώς και η ενημέρωση άλλων χρηστών για το project ή προτάσεις σχετικά με το lay-out και τη δομή του project είναι άκρως επιθυμητές. Προσδοκώ στη βοήθειά σου, όποτε θα σου είναι δυνατό.

Χαιρετίσματα!--Yannismarou 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Φαίνεται πολύ ενδιαφέρον. Ευχαριστώ πολύ για την πρόσκληση. Θα κοιτάξω να βρω που θα μπορέσω να βοηθήσω περισσότερο. Αν έχεις επιπλέον ιδέες ενημέρωσέ με. Συγχαρητήρια για την πολύ ωραία ιδέα. Στο επανιδείν. Τάσος. (Dr.K. 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

Great. Thanks Yannis. Dr.K. 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)