User talk:Donnerstag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:TeckWiz/Wikibreak

Contents

[edit] Windmills

Hello, Donnerstag, You are not the windmill, the windmill is User:81.168.30.222 who wrote: and the alphabet was adopted from the Greek (via Kadmos the King of Thebes) and not the SemiticPhoenicians [1]. Here are some links of Greek linguistic creationists: http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/homer/kordatos4.htm http://www.krassanakis.gr/thiva.htm Herzliche Grüße, Andreas 03:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Γραφικοί (Ανεμόμυλοι). It is a problem after all. Those people have a fixed impression about various ethnolinguistic and political issues based on mythology, preachings, bad quality websites and some recent tv-prophets that propagate laughable ideas. They can't be deterred. Donnerstag 10:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic impact of AIDS

As you are a member of the WikiProject Business and Economics, your help is kindly requested in the section of the AIDS article linked to above. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Greek and Cypriot media coverage

Hello Donnerstag,

I am writing a thesis on Croatia's candidacy to join the EU as seen by the various European media. As I see that you are a native Greek speaker interested in the EU and pretty much everything my thesis is about I was wondering if you would consider helping me. Needless to say, I don't speak Greek. However, I think it would be a shame if my thesis were to reflect only the views and topics covered in the countries such as Austria, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands etc (in short, the countries whose languages I understand). Therefore, I would like to include a section on Greek and Cypriot media in my thesis. I am not only interested in Croatia's candidacy, but also in the wider subjects people associate with the EU. I left a more detailed list on my discussion page.

I will be more than grateful if you could leave me just a link to a Greek or Cypriot newspaper article that deals with any of the above subjects with a short summary such as for example: "XY is opposed to Turkey's membership because of the unresolved Cyprus issue" or "the membership of Croatia is bad because the constitutional treaty has been rejected in France and the Netherlands" or "party X is critical to Greece's membership in the eurozone because of..."

I will be sending this message to several other native Greek speakers. Also if you know a Wikipedian who could help me, please let me know. Of course, if you're not interested, please accept my apologies and feel free to erase the message. Thank you for your time. PGradStudent 11:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello PGradStudent,

I am afraid I don't have much time to do an article search for you and I haven't kept an archive on the issue. But I think you could overcome the language problem. What I suggest is:

  • Check the english speaking Greek press (http://www.hri.org/, Athens News, WWW.ekathimerini.com)
  • Mail the editors of the major newspapers and ask them for information.
  • Ask the press attaché of the Croatian embassy in Athens for help (Check here [2]).

All major newspapers have published pubic opinion polls on enlargement and future accession countries. Particularly on Cyprus and Greek-Turkish relations there is some literature, also in English. Check google scholar.

You could also try to talk to professors specialising on Greek-Turkish relations in the University of Athens and Panteio University of Social and Political Science; there are also some academic experts in Britain. I won't write any names here.

Also check the following think tanks. (Could be helpful especially if you want to do some interviews).

  • Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy - ELIAMEP [3]
  • Institute if International Relations [4]
  • Centre for Political Research and Communications [5]
  • Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research [6]
  • Hellenic Centre for European Studies [7]

Good luck in your thesis.

Regards, -Donnerstag 20:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Donnerstag,
Thank you very much for the links, list of sources and other invaluable suggestions as well as your time and effort. The above will help me greatly with the Greek section of the thesis. I am truly thankful. All the best from Croatia. PGradStudent 11:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
PS To ease the navigation, I will copy your reply to my talk page in order to have everything in one place. PGradStudent 11:07, 11 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 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Patreus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Patreus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazia

Dear Donnerstag. I have studied Soviet Constitution during my studies at York (im MA in Political Sci. focusing on ex-Soviet republics) There is no single chapter on self determination by Autonomies (both republic or "oblast"). Only Soviet Socialist Republics had right to hold a referendum and determine the question of sovereignty or independence. Abkhazia has never been a Soviet Socialist Republic. She had no rights based on Soviet constitution to separate from the Soviet Republic of Georgia (CCP Gruzija). Many times Soviet leadership tried to change that article in Soviet constitution in favour of autonomies self determination but they failed to do so due to many factors (both juridical and political). I reviewed the sources which you quote and founded no single reference to Soviet constitution. The chapters of Self-determination in Soviet Constitution are VIII-xo "Konstituciya CCCP." Therefore, this so called justification is based on inaccurate data. Another thing which worried me about the article was that only Abkhaz claim is represented. Georgian claims are equally justified and should be mentioned in the article. I hope for your suggestions and co-operation. We can work together to make things right and respect NPOV. As of now, the so called justification of Abkhaz independence is POV. I have tons of sources (primary and secondary) we can use. All the best. Noxchi Borz 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Noxchi Borz. First of all I have to admit that this is a complex legal and political issue and I am no expert in that field. I put this excerpt on "juridical justification" of independence in February after an anonymous user provided a link to a website quoting a 1990 Soviet "law on secession". Maybe I should have been more careful. But then I checked and found that there were other online references to the so called law on secession, so I put it in the text.

Are you saying that the law is unconstitutional or that it is falsified? In any case the phrase "The Abkhaz side juridically justified Abkhaz independence with mainly two lines of thought..." either has to be removed altogether, or changed to something like "The Abkhaz side has tried to justify its indepedence with the following claims" if we find a reference to an accurate source to back them. How did the Abkhaz justify their declaration of independence anyway? You are right that this, much like all wikipedia articles on conflicts, is a bad article and has to be reworked. Unfortunately there is only little interest for that and it needs so much work. If we could come up with a minimum list of things that have to be done e.g. 1. causes of conflict 2. justification of Abkhaz independence etc. I can help. Best Regards, --Donnerstag 01:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Donnerstag, I welcome your co-operation and looking forward working with you on this article. I wish all on Wikipedia can be as much constructive as you are. My MA focus was more on post-Soviet conflicts (Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, etc). I reviewed both web sites and I can only say that the conclusion was misunderstood. Lenin persisted to introduce an article in Soviet constitution which gave right to Soviet Republics hold referendum on “self-determination” or “sovereignty.” Stalin finally gave a go ahead and this article or chapter was adopted by Soviet government. Abkhazia has never been a Soviet Socialist Republic. They claimed to be one in 1931 but historically and factually it’s far from the truth. But this is another topic. Georgia was a full Soviet Republic with two Autonomous Republics (Adjaria and Abkhazia) and one AO Autonomous “oblast” (not a republic) South Ossetia. In all cases both Autonomous Republics and Oblasts had no right to separate from the main Soviet Republics which they were part of. In Abkhazia case, this was justified by Georgians due to historic, political, ethnic and economical reality. Stalin did not attach Abkhazia because he was Georgian (on contrary he was against that) but he was forced to do so due to categories mentioned above. Abkhazia has always been historically part of Georgian kingdom and only when she was destroyed by Ottomans did she loose the control over her territories and later was annexed by Russian empire. Georgians always lived in Abkhazia since time immemorial and they were in majority. Abkhaz nationality itself was controversial and contested by many scholars. Back to the constitution. When things got horrible in Karabakh, Armenians knew that Autonomous Republic of Nagorny-Karabakh had no right according to S. Constitution to join Armenian CCP or became a separate CCP. Their only chance to control Karabakh de facto was through means of war/conflict and expulsion of all non-Armenian (e.i Azeri) from the AR Nagorny-Karabakh. Many times anti-Georgian members of Soviet elite tried to change that law in favor of Abkhazian separatism in 1970s and 80s but failed to do so because of mass demonstrations in Georgia which would bring catastrophic outcome for Soviet regime. The problem which I have with the article is simple. Georgian claims are not represented and offered to the reader. They are justified claims if we respect international law, both judicially and politically (if we forget about ethnically and historically). If in case Soviet law allowed Autonomies to separate, there would have been no wars in Karabakh, Abkhazia and whole of Caucasus would have been bunch of separate small Soviet Republics (Checheno-Ingush, Daghestan, Cherkessiya, Adigey. Kabardino-Balkaria, etc). Ldingley 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. It also makes me more optimistic to see that other people that have built a understanding of the whole context of the conflicts in the Caucasus are actively working to improve the articles. I had followed a seminar on conflict mediation and one on conflict intervention in the Caucasus. Both of them a few years ago. Unfortunately there weren't many opportunities for me so I switched to studies of globalization and local governance. I am still interested in Conflict studies, though, and I read some journals from time to time. My main concern with those wikipedia articles is that a well-thought, well-referenced and well-presented section of an article will be given equal basis (or worse!) to other views expressed by people emotionally and physically attached to one side of the confict that will try to monopolize the whole article. Well, for the conflict of Abkhazia only few people care, so if you structure a well balanced article it has great chances of surviving for some time at least. Actually in this Abkhazian conflict article nobody came to put some of the Georgian arguments although I provided space for that. However, if you go and summarize the legal aspects of the conflict as expressed by the XYZ scholar(s) then anyone can come and add another view which can be falsifying every sense of legality just by referring to one-any (or no) source. So it's a game of impressions which I find a little difficult that involved (or better say militant?) users would allow to be won by the strict legal examination of the situation. Hurricane Floyd will probably make a wonderful article but anyone who reads an aricle on some current conflict will leave totally misinformed, or hopefully just more confused than before. Have a look in the Cyprus dispute: There both sides, irrespective of the legal background of the conflict, have their own country box, so that any 30 secs reader will leave with the impression that there are two perfectly legitimate, recognized and sovereign states on the island. But let's go on with the Abkhazian conflict article, let's start with a section on the Georgian arguments. I am feeling guilty for having written something only from the one side, to be honest with you not because I have any personal connection to it but because it happened to have studied this particular part. Fortunately now that you are here we will solve this imbalance.--Donnerstag 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Donnestag, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, many Wiki conflict articles are subjected to revisions made by parties which are involved and therefore we get many POVs. However, there are cases when reliable or just any source on the topic is unavailable. Abkhazian issue is equally complex and simplistic. The only thing which worries me about Wikipedia is the fact that some student not knowing the background of the issue might get wrong information. For example York University outlawed for student to use Wikipedia as a source.
Back to your request. Please give me more time and I will work on that. Thank a lot. Take care and all the best. Ldingley 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Patrnight.jpg

About Image:Patrnight.jpg: I wasn't aware that the GFDL allows you to re-licence any work derived from the original, in anything other than the GFLD itself. Could you please change the licence spec on the image back to GDFL, please? Thanks :) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 06:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, we fixed the pic for ya, since you didn't respond yesterday. Thanks anyway :) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 Project2501a 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. It was my fault. I apologize. Have I known earlier the restrictions of the GFDL licence I wouldn't do it. Thanks for your time. Donnerstag 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Dear Donnerstag, there is a huge mess going on here Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. You should be involved (you were original founder of this article) and use your skills to bring out the solution and consensus on that article. Thanks in advance. Ldingley 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Region

Hello Donnerstag, I would rather use the term "region" or "authority" when describing Abkhazia. I would not use the term "state" since it implies automatically international recognition, since it's obviously not this case. Efharisto poli, -- Georgianis | (t) 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Parakalo Georgianis, could you please point the piece of text where I wrote that? I tried but can't find it. Donnerstag 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rionbridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rionbridge.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Patrasport.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Patrasport.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Button europeancapital en.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Button europeancapital en.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Big politistiki.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Big politistiki.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)