User talk:NikoSilver/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

01 – 02 – 03 – 04 – 05 – 06 – 07 – 08 – 09 – Archive 10 – 11 – 12 – 13 – 14

Contents

Oh come on now...

Now, please, stop squabbling on Nishkid's talk page. Can't you see the guy isn't interested in this petulance? You guys have messed up big style, all three of you, and now we have the worst of all possible situations. Hope you're proud of yourselves. I'm trying to determine with a fellow admin how to best clean up this mess, so please stop interfering. I should really have blocked the whole lot of you once you started, involved admin or not. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't deserve that comment above, please check my contribs thoroughly. As a friend, I advise you to give equal warnings and equal threats (and provide equal comments to third admins), for equally wrong actions. (no citations -purposely) Involuntary one sidedness in this is becoming noticeable. Check my last comment and citations to Nishkid, and search contribs for more alike. NikoSilver 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, you're right, I apologise. You weren't involved in the move-warring. I was just angry because there were so many unnecessary and distracting messages on Nishkid's talkpage when I was trying to get through to him. Just imagine how many times he got the yellow flag come up yesterday, no wonder he didn't respond to any of us in the end. - The fault for the move chaos is plainly Dirak's, I'm afraid. It was he who started all the dirty tricks again, and he did it in cold blood and knowing exactly what he was doing. -- As for what's going to happen next, I frankly no longer give a damn whether the page will have "Muslim" in the title or not, it's a very minor issue as long as the content will be improved. For the moment, I'm just trying to find a way to get the page to a title that is correct English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing I was merely watching closely (and occasionally laughing I must admit). However, you are still doing it. No side is a Saint in this chaos, and dirty tricks came both ways. To be accurate, there were more dirty tricks from the other side, including but not limited to "spoilings" of "wrong" versions via pseudo-dab pages, 3RR, and copy-paste moves. You were too busy writing at RFPP and Nishkid to notice I guess, so I urge you to go on and investigate fully in the deleted histories, before deciding to attribute responsibility for "chaos".
As for the issue at hand, I personally find a little tail on a Iota much less annoying than an article title that forces exclusion of NPOV information, while giving undue weight to sufferings of part of the population, from causes that affected the entire population equally. But then again, my not being a linguist may be considered bias... NikoSilver 12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I honestly believe you are mistaken about the behaviour of the various parties yesterday. There's nothing damning in the deleted histories; I checked. I admit I hadn't noticed OttomanReference's introduction of the dab version, but that can still be interpreted as a good-faith edit. Dirak's "glitches" can't. It was Dirak who introduced the dirty tricks of scorched-earth moves, and it was also he who first took resort to the other dirty trick of using multiple ad-hoc alternative targets. Both are clearly bad faith moves; he did that before Baristarim violated 3RR (as far as I can make out right now); and, most crucially: he should have known better, because he's a veteran to those kinds of things and seems to be treating them almost like a game. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That is definitely no reason to respond in a policy-breaking manner, ("he started it"-excuses belong to the kindergarden) and everybody involved "knew better". However, if you want to address "what started it", it was the first move despite apparent consensus, which you yourself also highlighted illustratively. The mockery of rules, reasoning, and consensus, is much more serious than "glitches" (which were responded by other "glitches") and "ad-hoc alternative targets" (which were responded by other same, or by copy-paste moves), and all in vio of 3RR (kindergarden x4).
Now I haven't seen any "no fun" notes to other ...prominent adherers of policy, nor do I like involving third admins with one side of the story. ABF was abundant from all sides.
If I were in your shoes, I'd have prevented this twice before it happened (one, by closing, or by urging to close the AfD carefully; and two, by supporting the apparent consensus using administrative power). And it wouldn't sacrifice my integrity (gimme a break! it's transparent any way you see it!); it would just sacrifice the chance for the "game". However, I know it was a tough decision, and I know that you couldn't see it coming to that extent.
On a lighter note, I find that the present locked version serves as divine justice, to punish both POV, and non-intervening-linguist-admins! :-) NikoSilver 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree, mainly on two accounts: First, me closing the AfD or me enforcing my interpretation of its outcome, after having taken a pronounced position in it, would have been absolutely out of the question. Clear breach of admin rules, grounds enough for desysoping. Second, our (your and my own) interpretation of what the consequences of the AfD should be were certainly reasonable, but they were by no means obvious and unavoidable enough to mark all opposing interpretations as illegitimate or bad-faith. Baristarim's initial moves were just as legitimate as yours and mine. - As for warnings and rebukes, there is a difference between this and this, and the response differs accordingly. - As for only mentioning one side at Nishkid's page, it was only that title that was at issue at that moment, because that's were the page happened to be. As for Divine justice, I still like my idea of tossing a coin - and then letting all participants squabble and fight and argue and lawyer and vote-stack again until they're blue in the face. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha! I'd rather have you blue in face with that "1". And you didn't address "urging to close the AfD carefully" (to add that I warned you). Nor did you address the fact that you posted this, before you received that (which sounds too hypocritical anyway given the circumstances). As for that, heh, it's like how we can interpret O.R.'s dab-page, I guess... NikoSilver 14:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I get more easily red than blue. "Urging to close carefully"? When, whom, where? "Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν." We don't normally run after admins while an AfD is running in order to tell them how to close it. As for this, I told you above why it only mentions one side. And now back to work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You could easily post a *Comment below when the deadline was approaching to urge admins to carefully study the content of the votes, rather than the initial bolded word alone. That would be perfectly legitimate. And yes, I can imagine you yesterday as red as a mullus surmuletus!![1] (μπηχτές απαντήθηκαν, διά 'σάς ομιλούμεν) NikoSilver 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Only a person who saw me throwing one of my infamous temper tantrums when I was five years old will ever be able to say they fully and truly know my personality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop-ups

Please, you are the last one who should be giving me lectures on this. You have used the pop-ups so many times on PGG and TRNC while the disputes for the titles were going on. People living in glass-houses shouldn't throw stones. Who was the one that played with the redirect at the "Ottoman Muslim casualties of WWI" so that after the move nobody would be able to move back? You made a very minor edit so that the redirect will have an history and therefore the reversal would be impossible without admin involvement. So, just take it easy dude. Baristarim 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite your claims with diffs please. For the rv feature, I've never used it as is, and always add why (unless in vandalism, or in a specific edit war among specific editors who specifically know what I'm doing coz I've explained in the first rv anyway). NikoSilver 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the minor, I had no idea it was bad to do it, and I did it in good faith, so as to keep the situation stable at the consented version as instructed. And yes, I apologize, but requesting an admin to review the change I made before one reverts it, was considered the only option (and given the results yesterday I was right). NikoSilver 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You were in violation of THREE issues (as per my edit-summary).NikoSilver 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude is WP:NPA when referring to me in this context, so also behave (as warned multiple times -again).NikoSilver 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude is not NPA. However if you are offended, I won't use it again. And please do not post me or reply to me with exagerrated civility warnings. Thank you. Baristarim 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"So, just take it easy dude" and Right! Give me a break! are uncivil, especially in the context of trying to discredit my accredited sources earlier cited (Steven L. Jacobs and Samuel Totten). NikoSilver 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do the research better. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for the the "COI" fiasco, but the recent addition to the TRNC was nothing short of lame POV-pushing. I checked all the sources, and none of the sources back up what is written in that sentence; like "illegal", "occupied" etc. First read the sources, then add them please. Such twisting of info is disruption.Baristarim 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You could always reword according to the source (which btw sounds neutral to me). NikoSilver 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, editors can be bitten: he was not a new user. New users do not know how the referencing system works, and it takes a while for them to learn. No new-user can jump directly into such a dispute and make such edits. Common sense. I am afraid that you letting the emotions cloud your reasoning. Please don't do that. Baristarim 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is new, and I doubt you even checked. Ask User:Jakew. The refs were added by me in the second edit, not him in the first. NikoSilver 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Those edits were reverted by many people. Baristarim 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean in TRNC? I request [citation needed] NikoSilver 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, after the "COI" fiasco, "vandalism". Nikos, are you sure that you are reading up on all these policies that you are throwing around? Inserting "fuck you" into an article is vandalism, content dispute is not. Baristarim 17:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your interpretation and isolation of the facts is quite unfortunate. Content removal IS vandalism. When you dispute the content, you either NPOV it, or delete it citing your reasons (in that order). You don't just click flashy buttons at your convenience biting people and deleting everything. "COI fiasco" and such terminologies when you're clearly in violation of COI/non-COI consensus is lame. NikoSilver 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, content dispute is not vandalism. I explained my edits, and I am not new to Wikipedia so it is not like I was attacking a page from the get-go. Content removal, if it is based on a deliberate misinterpratation of sources is, is simply helping Wikipedia become more encyclopedic. Baristarim 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What you did, was content removal, and no, you didn't "explain". You hit the rv shortcut period. NikoSilver 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not play with my comments. Baristarim 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be copying the parts I consider dubious below (per flooding). NikoSilver 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
--Yannismarou 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Poems

Τι; Δεν είσαι πια; Αφού τώρα τις φοράω, εδώ τη στιγμή που σου γράφω... Τ'ς πούλ'σις ούλες;

I like the internal rhymes in that verse. "itch" – "scratch" - "glitch", in parallel to "this" - "that" - "-ish" - "flat", that's pretty nifty.

Ηθελα να σου απαντήσω μ'ένα άλλο, αλλά κάπως δε μου ήρθε ... :-)

Για τη σελίδα εκείνη, δε ξέρω, οι κανόνες απλώς δε λένε τίποτα γι'αυτά. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

From Gligan

Well, the term "slavic languages of Macedonia" is somewhat undefined, what are these languages? Yes, I know that Bulgarian is one of these and it is one and the same with "Macedonian" (which is a dialect of BG), but for example the ordinary english or american would not know, this is why I replaced it. I added the BG name for the Aegean sea, because we had and should have an outled of the sea, these are our natural borders, why then there is the Greek for the Black Sea???? You see, it is just not fair. The same is with Solun, I can't see its Bulgarian name, while there is the greek for Plovdiv, I think we should do something...

I will not add the BG names for these before I receive your answer, but in my opinion we shall either add the Bulgarian names where they are missing or remove the greek names respectively. My respects to the greek language, but I do not think it is more important or special than Bulgarian. --Gligan 09:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see... Please, we are in 2007, when Bulgaria is within EU, and I'm really concerned with:
  • ""Macedonian" (which is a dialect of BG)", despite Bulgarian government's official position that it is a languageBritish Council — Bulgaria
  • "we had and should have an outled of the [Aegean] sea, these are our natural borders"
Please revise these comments.
Regarding the Greek language for the Black sea, I respect your concerns. However, the Greek history in the Black Sea is incomparably lengthier (and important, and through multiple countries of today -such as Pontos and Constantinople of Turkey; Constanca of Romania; Krimea of Ukraine etc) than the very brief Bulgarian intermissions of outlets to the Aegean (with special reference to the Nazi occupation), so I personally would not feel comfortable with the name there. I am open to discussion for the comparative significance though.
Regarding the relative significance of languages, indeed, I agree that no language is more significant than any other, and that includes the Greek, the Latin, and all languages described formerly as lingua franca. NikoSilver 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The WW2 was not the only period when BG had an outlet on the Aegean Sea, we had it under Presian, Boris I, Simeon I, Kaloyan, Ivan Asen II... After the treaty in San Stefano 1878, when the territory populated by Bulgarians was indicated, there was outlet on the sea, and even now in most major cities there are neighbourhoods called "belomorski" (aegean).

Bulgarian rule over Plovdiv was much longer than greek (in fact there was no greek rule there, Byzantium is not Greece), but still the Greek name stays. Now if you don't mind I will add the Bulgarian names of Solun and the Aegean Sea, and if they are removed I will do exactly the same with the Greek names. After we are members of this EU, we should be completely equal in everything. --Gligan 14:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

?? I am sorry, but I had to revert the inclusion of the Bulgarian name to the Aegean Sea as well simply because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense - these articles exist to be informative to the uninformed reader, not confuse them. And what is the deal with the EU thing? :)) Something will be included if it makes sense not if someone feels that "we should be completely equal in everything". If there are only two countries, both actually and pretty much all throughout recent history, that have bordered the Aegean Sea, why are we going to include other alternate names? Baristarim 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I will remove the Greek for Black Sea, Greece does not border it. --Gligan 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict x2] As I said, I am open for discussion regarding the Aegean. Solun is a different case, because it was never under Bulgarian occupation, and I feel that the compromise of the separate article (that also solves the ambiguity between Macedonian and Macedonian) is more than fair. I will not object to the Aegean, given your rationale for Plovdiv, but I think, again, that Philipoupolis was much more notable to the Byzantine Empire than Aegean was to the Bulgarian one. Also, I don't get your last sentence... do you mean to imply that I think you are not equal? That is certainly not the case; I actually admire the Bulgarian people their history and their culture, and have expressed it with actions here in WP (and in real life). Ask your compatriots TodorBozhinov and FunkyFly. NikoSilver 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You understand of course that your last comment is a confessed WP:POINT violation. Again, Greek history in the Black Sea is connected not only to Bulgaria, but to all countries having a shore there. NikoSilver 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Greek name because Baristarim removed the Bulgarian. So let us reach a consensus what to do:

There will be the Greek name of the Black Sea and The Bulgarian of Aegean Sea. And for Plovdiv I will add origines of the name in the geography section where all the names will be included and I will place only the BG name in the beginning as is the case with Solun. I am slightly annoyed by the use of "Slavic languages in Macedonia", but I saw that Bulgarian is included in the article of these languages, so I will accept this (although I believe that Macedonian is a dialect:)) Do you agree with this? --Gligan 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding the Bulgarian name to the Aegean Sea article, however, more Greek names are needed at Bulgarian cities articles (such as Πλεύνα at Pleven). Then I wouldn't mind ditching "Slavic" and everything else for "Bulgarian", as I, like you, consider all Slavic dialects/languages of Macedonia and Thrace as variations of Bulgarian. LieutenantBoom 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All right then, can we agree to add the Greek name for all the major BG cities and the Bulgarian (not Slavic) name for all the major GR cities, including Атина at Athens? I agree with this. --Gligan 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Pleven was once part of a Greek-speaking state. When was Athens last part of a Bulgarian-speaking state? LieutenantBoom 15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But Volos and Larisa for instance have been part of Bulgaria, I agree with the case of Athens. --Gligan 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't object. Some other people may though... LieutenantBoom 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Niko for putting my nose in here, but just to make it clear, Gligan, I will not accept under any circumstances to remove "slavic languages of Macedonia" with "Bulgarian", for the reasons already said by Niko. And as for the Aegaean, again no, because Bulgarian presence was marginal, and if we put it we would have to add Latin, Arab, Italian, and French, whose presence in the area was longer and more stable than that of Bulgarians. As for the Black Sea, it would be worthwile remembering that its name was given by he Greeks, while the same is not true for the Aegaean Sea, apart from a presence that has extinguished itself only in the 20th century.--Aldux 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
NP Aldux. Your rationale is correct, but for the record, I personally wouldn't have any problem to include all relevant languages in Aegean in a section below (only to avoid clutter). I wouldn't support exactly, but let's say I'm not outright opposed. NikoSilver 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenedos

Could you upload a satellite view of Tenedos and its surroundings? See Talk:Tenedos to see what the issues are. The area involved should be small enough to actually show the island, but large enough to show context (say from Thrace to Lesbos, and Lemnos to well past Troy? enough to show Turkey as the mainland, anyway.) You will see on the talk page why it would be just as well to have no names; just a mark for the island and the international boundary. Let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PGG resolution attempt

Hi Niko, an attempt has just begun to resolve the Pontian Greek Genocide dispute through an arbitration committee. Since you are one of the main contributors, could you please voice your support or objection to such a measure here. Thanks, --A.Garnet 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Map

Which one? I've been busy uploading lots of maps with lots of varieties of ugly borders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it tomorrow. Have a look at Aegean dispute to get an idea of what I've been doing. You'll have to put up with all the ugly borders because you failed to bring me more photographs of rocky islands from your last boating trip. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. For now I'm going for Future Perfect's because it's a straight vertical view like the maps of Macedonia; but real perspective is better than fake perspective. Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Sorry Niko, I forgot to reply to your earlier question - you'd asked about the difference between a name and a reference. The best analogy I can think of is that it's like the difference between the title of a book and the book's library catalogue number. The catalogue number is how everyone agrees to categorise the book, assuming they're using a common system. What people call the book, on the other hand, will depend on local circumstances (i.e. language). Thus you'll always find The Lord of the Rings (for example) categorised under a particular catalogue number; however, the book may be called The Lord of the Rings or Le Seigneur des Anneaux or Der Herr der Ringe, depending on what language that particular edition might use. In other words, the reference is a term or a symbol or a number that has been chosen to represent an object that may have more than one proper name. -- ChrisO 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to this trivial issue, that doesn't seem to make a difference in meaning either-way. This is an entirely philosophical approach which I find rather complicated, given that the FYROM spellout is also translated in all relevant languages. For example Germany[2] calls it "ehemalige jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien", while it also states:
Ländername laut Verfassung: Republik Mazedonien (Republika Makedonija) VN-Mitgliedschaft unter der Bezeichnung "ehemalige jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien" Deutschland verwendet im offiziellen Rahmen den bei den Vereinten Nationen üblichen Namen
which I translated in babelfish as:
Country name according to constitution: Republic of Macedonia (Republika Makedonija) UN-membership under the designation "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Germany uses the name usual at the United Nations in the official framework
(bolding mine)
I feel that the difference between a name-name and a reference-name is just in the ...name, for they describe the same thing. There are more even UN sources that refer to the name, as either designation or reference or simply name. Will post examples later. NikoSilver 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The following search...

http://secap480.un.org/search?q="name%20former%20yugoslav%20republic%20of%20macedonia"&spell=1&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=utf8&lr=&client=UN_Website_English&num=10&site=&oe=utf8&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_English (I can't properly link it because for some unexplained dumb reason the WP software splits it in every occurence of the quotation mark character. You can copy/paste it in your browser's address bar.)

...proves that there are at least two occurencies within the UN archives (to which one must have paid access to see the complete content) that include the exact text: "name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

The context displayed suggests that, indeed, the word "name" is used as a descriptor:

... concerning the admission of that State to the United Nations, to the extent that it is contrary to the name [former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia], which must ...

Now that we sourced this, I would request that from now on we do not include the term "reference" or "designation" or whatever, in a diminutive context that aims to disassociate it from its natural meaning (i.e. simply "name"). NikoSilver 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really a satisfactory approach. Our sources have made an explicit distinction between a reference and a name - i.e. that FYROM is "what the UN chooses to call it" rather than "what it is called". Note also that the UN made a point of not capitalising the reference - "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (i.e. a description) rather than "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (i.e. a proper name, since it's capitalised). I agree that the distinction is subtle, but it's an important one and I think it's worth noting - the whole point of the UN's approach was to find a neutral middle way that didn't endorse either side's claims. -- ChrisO 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the key-word "provisional" adequately describes all your considerations, and that the disassociation of the synonyms "reference"/"designation"/"name" is largely unsourced (even counter-sourced given the 3 sources above); and founded on the WP:OR interpretation of a non-capitalized "f" and on the (false) assumption that it is not described as a "name". Do we have any WP:INDY source that makes this semantic disassociation of the three terms? I seriously doubt it. NikoSilver 12:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes we do, and it's cited in para 2 of Macedonia naming dispute#Background - Jochen Abr. Frowein, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1997, p. 239 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998). The authors devote several paragraphs to the issue, pointing out the non-capitalized "f", making the distinction between a reference and a name, and explaining why the terminology was chosen in the first place. As for the other sources, they're not directly relevant in this context - the most relevant material is (a) the original UN resolution admitting FYROM, which specifically states that the term is a provisional reference rather than any kind of name, even a provisional one ("this State being provisionally referred to as...") and (b) any material which explicitly explains why the UN chose this wording. Hence the Max Planck Yearbook citation. -- ChrisO 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Awww! You should have told me in the first place that the citation there was for that. You would have saved me the trouble of searching around to find The TruthTM! I had no access to it since there's no link, and I thought it regarded the latter comment that "The UN also did not seek to set a standard for how others should refer to the republic". Maybe we should point out who is interpreting that distinction (since it's not the UN themselves)? In any case, my apologies for assuming it was you who had thought all that (that struck me as quite odd to tell you the truth). NikoSilver 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! I didn't realise there was a confusion over what the reference related to. I can assure you that I don't add OR to articles. :-) Regarding who's interpreting the distinction, I've done a bit more digging - it turns out that the distinction comes from the Security Council itself. The President of the Security Council made a statement on 7 April 1993 emphasizing that "the reference in the resolution that had just been adopted to 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' ... merely reflected the historic fact that it had been in the past a republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." In other words, as I said, it's a description (it could just as well have been "south Balkan Republic of Macedonia"!) rather than a proper name. -- ChrisO 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ για το σχόλιο σου και συμφωνώ ότι δεν υπάρχουν και πολλά περιθώρια να αλλάξει η κατάσταση. Από τη μια έχουμε τούς "Μακεδόνες" που έχουν βολευτεί στο ότι όλα τα κράτη τούς αποκαλούν έτσι και δεν ενδιαφέρονται πια για κοινή λύση και από την άλλη έχουμε όλους τούς ουδέτερους ξένους που δεν ενδιαφέρονται να αλλάξουν το πώς θα ονομάζουν αυτόν τον λαό, έχοντας βολευτεί επίσης με αυτή την ονομασία. Σού λένε κιόλας ότι εμείς είμαστε οι κακοί στην ιστορία αφού δεν τούς αφήνουμε να αυτοπροσδιορίζονται. Κατά τη γνώμη μου πληρώνουμε την αδιαλλαξία των αρχών τού 1990, όπου μια λύση τύπου "Σλαβομακεδονία" ή έστω "Βόρεια Μακεδονία" θα ήταν πολύ εφικτή. Τώρα είναι πολύ αμφίβολο αν μπορούμε να πετύχουμε έστω κι αυτό. Αυτό που μπορούμε και πρέπει να κάνουμε είναι να δείξουμε γιατί πρέπει να υπάρχει διαχωρισμός των δύο "Μακεδονιών", ώστε να μην υπάρχει σύγχυση μεταξύ Σλαβομακεδόνων και Ελλήνων τής Μακεδονίας με τον ασαφή όρο Macedonian και το ζήτημα τού αυτοπροσδιορισμού των τελευταίων, που κανείς δεν το λαμβάνει υπόψη. Επίσης, το πόσο ανιστόρητο είναι να συνδέονται η αρχαία Μακεδονία και η ΠΓΔΜ. Δεν λέω ότι δεν έχουν το δικαίωμα να φτιάχνουν αγάλματα στον Μ.Αλέξανδρο, αν θέλουν να είναι τόσο μεγάλοι θαυμαστές των αρχαίων Μακεδόνων ας είναι. Το θέμα είναι ότι μιλούσαν δεν μιλούσαν ελληνική διάλεκτο οι αρχαίοι Μακεδόνες δεν έχει καμία σημασία από τη στιγμή που αυτοπροσδιορίστηκαν ως Έλληνες ήδη από τις αρχές τού 5ου αιώνα π.Χ. Πόσο μάλλον όταν δεν υπάρχει ούτε ένα όνομα αρχαίου Μακεδόνα που να μην έχει ελληνική προέλευση, ενώ η περιοχή τής αρχαίας Μακεδονίας ταυτίζεται με αυτή τής σύγχρονης ελληνικής Μακεδονίας. Το επιχείρημα που λένε γιατί δεν τούς αφήνετε να συνδέσουν τούς εαυτούς τους με την αρχαία Μακεδονία αφού ούτε και εσείς συνδέεστε μαζί της είναι τής πλάκας. (Dionysios 07:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

χεχε πήγαινε στη σελίδα τού User:Makedonec να δεις τι τού έγραψα. Εδώ έγραφαν τον Νίνη ως Αλβανό, το ζεμπέκικο ως τουρκικό χoρό και τον Σαβέβσκι ως "μακεδόνα" (τον έγραψα Σλαβομακεδόνα). (Εννοείται δεν το κάνω με εθνικιστικό πάθος, αλλά εκεί που πρόκειται για αντικειμενική αλήθεια). (Dionysios 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

PGG article

Hi, can you sign yay or nay here please. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Niko, I think you should move it back to the original title for now, so we can get a consensus first, then we can decide. Compare to that airport in the FYROM... Khoikhoi 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry For the last sentence

For the last sentence, I have not found a reference. What I was refering to was that the claims was not considered as important by Turkish politicians, i.e. for Ecevit, I remember his speech. As I could not manage to find his quotes on google, it is my mistake to add that last sentence. Sorry for inconvinience!Paparokan 22:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize Paparokan. It was a good faith edit expressing your impression of how Turkish politicians take the issue. By the way, Ecevit's quote wouldn't be adequate either. We'll need an explicit quote from a third party source saying "Turks do not take the PGG seriously, while they do take the AG seriously". If we had Ecevit's quote, or an official governmental quote for the exact matter, we'd say the same thing, only starting the sentence like: "Ecevit stated that..." or "Official Turkish sources maintain...". Your help in inserting the Turkish position in the article is greatly appreciated. Thanks. NikoSilver 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

NIKO EPEIGON!!!!! Απίστευτες βλακείες γραφουν καποιοι χρήστες για τον Μακεδονικο Αγώνα και για τον Γερμανό Καραβαγέλλη. Προσπαθησα να διορθόσω λίγο την κατασταση αλλα δεν ξέρω εάν τα κατάφερα!! παρακαλώ βοήθεια!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanos_Karavangelis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Struggle_for_Macedonia

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seleukosa (talk • contribs) 22:55, February 11, 2007

Don't worry too much. I (and a lot of others) have both in their watchlists. I'll check later. NikoSilver 22:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nick Hello check please the talk pages at the following articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greek_Struggle_for_Macedonia and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germanos_Karavangelis I asked some questions but i need some help. Your advise is important. Thank you (Seleukosa 11:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Re: Karamanlis

Σόρρυ, εγώ φταίω. Υπέθεσα ότι το απόσπασμα στα εισαγωγικά ήταν μετάφραση από ελληνικά (π.χ. την επικεφαλίσα της εφημερίδας).

Cypriot stud 13:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting..

In the case you missed this jewel that Khoi's uncovered [[3]: and I thought that Kaltsef was at least original...--Aldux 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't possibly think of a relation in the two POVs... However the format resemblance is striking. Had seen that in FP's talk. NikoSilver 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Greek war of independence

Thanks Niko! BTW, is there any other way possible other than self-identification? :) Regards, --Free smyrnan 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this then ...:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Macedonia

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PGG arbitration

Hi Niko,

I still think arbitration is the best way to resolve this articles dispute. Therefore, to get things going again, can you tell me what exactly you want to see in this arbitration before you agree? Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alf, this issue is not between just the two of us (naturally). I have voiced certain concerns twice in that talkpage, and I expect them responded and discussed there. Not here where the others can't follow. NikoSilver 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well to be honest I am still unclear about what you want. You want 20 arbiters? You want us to elect our own? Isnt it reasonable that we base on it on the official Wikipedia arbitration process which has about 5 members? 20 is simply not feasible, also nominating our own is not desirable either, we will simply pick those we believe sympathetic to our views. The idea is a small committee of dedicated and knowledgeable editors resovle it of their own accord, without our interference. I have asked you here because i wanted your views specifically, I want you to tell me "do this and this and i will agree", so let me know either here or on the talk page please. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the precedent for this way of changing the title? What happened to WP:RM? Everytime there is a policy Garnet does not like, it has to be changed and replaced with a board of anti-Greek arbiters? Precedent? Policy? Any reason why anyone in favor of the current title should pay any attention to this invitation? The procedure for renaming pages is crystal clear. Beyond that I have nothing more to say. Dirak 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Niko. I dont want you to think I am pestering or pressuring you into this arbitration thing, but I am very serious about it, we have both agreed in the past arbitration is the way to go. All I want is to be clear exactly where you stand, what it is you oppose and then we will see how we can come to a decision on the best way to go forward. To do this, once again, I'd ask if you could be explicit in what you oppose. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

Καλησπέρα! I have added one new article Tellos Agras. Your opinion and your suggestions are always welcome. Have a nice evening! Kapnisma 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Πώς σου φαίνεται η μετάφραση Aris Thessaloniki anthem; Άντε Αρειανάρα και με τη νίκη σήμερα !!! Καλό τριήμερο! Kapnisma 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

File

File, tell me what you think of the ergotelis page I built:

Reaper7 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kalispera

Rikse mia matia edo, an thelis se parakalo! Tha m´ endiafere (para poli) i gnomi sou edo Ti les? Simfonis me ti diagafi pou protino? Ta leme. --Asteraki 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

YG. Arki i afto i kai t´alla tria? (kseris ti enoo... ! -To lakonizin estin... epi tou parontos). --Asteraki 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Efharisto gia tin amesi apantisi. Meta apo mia pio orimi skepsi, siniditopiisa oti exis apolito dikio... (ennoo tin topothetisi sou stis selides diagrafon tis el. wiki). Apotelesma, aneresa gia proti fora stin kariera mou (...) tin psifo mou kai ipostiriksa tin apopsi sou. --Asteraki 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

YG.Emis den dehomaste kai den eimaste maimoudes, eimaste Makedones pou agapane tis Maimoudes. :) Ti les ki esi? --Asteraki 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bitola

Niko, sorry for asking, but once we agreed to leave all relevant names in Bitola (and other articles as well) in the Name section? MatriX 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, ok, let's move all names in the section. NikoSilver 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, well, a talk is always more productive than edit wars:) MatriX 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Bitola/Matrix, you are such a hypocrite.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hipocrite? It is the official name of the city! However, I do not intend to argue here in the Niko's page, if you have something to tell me, you can freely do it in my talk page.MatriX 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A Question?

Hey Niko...I was wondering what your thoughts were about this username: User:Kuakini. The user created himself after a minor skirmish at Hilo High School as evidenced by this diff [4]. It seemed that this user was creating himself only to respond to my edits on Hilo High School at the time. Interestingly, our usernames are all of one letter different. One might wonder if this was an effort to impersonate an admin? I dunno. He has been inactive basically since deleting the welcome I put on his page. I do know I am too biased on this issue to do much more than ask a fellow wikipedian for his thoughts. Kukini hablame aqui 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No WP:AGF here Kukini, clear case. I'd ask a fellow admin to block him/her asap (wouldn't want me to be the one who does it). NikoSilver 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I feel sorta uncomfortable doing that. --Kukini hablame aqui 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Let's see what the others think. NikoSilver 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I will stay out of that process as I don't want to bias responses in any manner. --Kukini hablame aqui 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wise choice. You won't have to, apparently. :-) NikoSilver 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Efxaristo

Ya! Xereis an iparxei kapoios diaxiristis pou mporei na mas voithisei se afto to arthro?--Avienus 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Diaxiristis einai aftos? Den to ixera!--Avienus 01:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cretan Turks

Hello. You participated in an edit war today at this page, with 3 reverts in the space of an hour, and using popups for automated reversions. In the future, please use dispute resolution when you have an edit conflict, and remain polite. Edit warring spreads ill-will and is counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I lost my temper and used the same currency. Hope you've went on to warn politely the rest of the involved users that sparked it off, and have not been using any arguments in the talkpage. NikoSilver 11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Philaek

Geia sou Niko, blepw pws me ton giouzer philhellenism tou edoses mauro kai kitrino. Mpas kai eisai AEK? Egw hmouna aspros kai mauros alla twra asta na pane... Politis 13:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Geia sou Kwnstanth, mesa eisai. AEKaki eimai, alla den asxoloumai mpit me mpala. O Philehellenism mallon gia Byzantio meria thn eide. Aspromavros eipes? OFH h' PAOK? NikoSilver 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

PAOK, alla etsi pou kai pou, kai pio polly gia tin koubenta ths paraias, otan kai ama laxei; pitsirikos eimouna PAO - paidika la8ei! Politis 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks and sorry! :-)Sangak 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Macedonism

Thanks for the formatting and references.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VI (II) - February 2007

The WikiProject Greece Newsletter
Issue VI (II) - February 2007
Project news
  • This is the second Newsletter of the new and enhanced Wikiproject Greece! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered , its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions!
  • All the "History of Greece" templates have been moved to just plain "Greece", and the project's main page has been updated to use the new names and not the redirects.
  • Our banner has been renamed to {{WPGreece}}). Additionally, "View/hide" hyperlinks for all the additional sections (Criteria for B-Class, peer-review, task forces) have been added to the banner, and a "small option" is also supported. The parameter for the Politics and politicians task force has been changed from task force1 to politics-task-force. For more details, check Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Project banner.
Current proposals and discussions
  • A proposal for the creation of task forces for other areas, such as arts, sports, etc. has been made here. The creation of a task force to periodically check article within the scope of the project against "erosion" has been also proposed here. Please, participate in the above discussions and express yourself.
  • Galleries of images at Greece, Athens, and Thessaloniki will probably get removed. A number were already removed from Greece. Interested editors are requested to make sure that any of these that aren't at Wikimedia Commons get moved there.
  • A new category, Category:Greek Civil War, has been created. Please populate it with relevant articles on revolutionary organisations, events, leaders etc.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yannismarou (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Frappe

You are absolutely right about the Freddo, and Nestlé. My bad. Sorry. And thanks for correcting the picture as well, never thought it from that angle. However at least for frappé (and to some extend with freddo) there are many that have connected it with Nestle. Maybe you should comment on that. Also illy is using real coffee if I am not misteken, Freddo as we know it in Greece is with instant coffee.

Take care. Gpyrgiot

Responded in your talk! :-) NikoSilver 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

While i am not going to fight your re-opening of the RFCN on User:Mcedonia, in the future, I would appreciate you expressing your concerns to me before taking such action. While not necessary, it is generally courteous. Secondly, I stand by my originial decision. WP:RFCN is supposed to be based on username policy. So far, I have not seen any compelling disallow arguments based on polciy, only based on the possible conflict of interest with the edits. I do the same when closing afds with allwos or deletes not backed by policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem, please read the reasons more carefully. His userpage has been masquerading as a Wikipedia article on Macedonia obviously aided by his username.--Domitius 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] You are mistaken in both accounts. RFCN cannot be but reverted immediately due to high traffic of the page, otherwise there is no archive. I'd have contacted you immediately to let you know, of course. Secondly, I have explained why policy applies, through both precedent and argumentation on "inflammatory". I would appreciate if you let it evolve, and let users express their concerns normally. "Precedent" and "inflammatory" are valid arguments, double standards and WP:ROUGEness aren't. NikoSilver 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, i am persoonalyl offended at your claims against me. I have no more of a stake in this than many others that I close. I, as well as 2 other users very active in WP:RFCN have agreed that this should be closed because it is very unlikley that a consensus to disallow will form. I have been involved in many of these and it only goes downhill from here (I.E., the same people argue the same points around in cirlces and get nowhere). As of your claim that there were more disallow than allows, I beg to differ. At the time of closure, there were 3 disallows that I counted and 5 allows that i counted. You have not proven the name is inflamatory to a majority of people and not even proven as to why it would be inflamatory. You seem to have a personal agenda against the person in question which also led me to believe a closure was appropriate. I am sorry that you feel I am rouge and have double standards, however if you look at my history of closing them I always use the same standards. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't take it personally Chris, I didn't mean anything against you (unless you find it rational to insist against the will of five users so far that is). "Unlikely" is an estimation, which is subjective. Will you please let it evolve in peace? We're confusing people there with our dispute. I'm sure you've understood what I'm saying, as I've understood your position. Both of us repeating will only make it worse for the rest. Let's agree that we disagree, and we see how it goes. OK? NikoSilver 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem agreeing to disagree. However, there are not 5 people who are for disallowing. The most recent makes it 4. There will have to be a clear consensus based clearly on policy before anybody at WP:RFCN gets usernameblocked. I am just letting you know that. I have closed many many many of these. It is noithing against the name, I dont even have a personal preference either way, my only preference is based on my interpretation of the policy. You can look through my history of closing these and see it is nothing abnormal. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok Chris, I've counted 60% so far in the last 3 weeks I'm voting there. Let's see what happens please. ("Five" counts FunkyFly who hasn't voted, but has expressed opinion. I'm sure he will if we give him the chance). NikoSilver 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, consensus is not based on a percentage either way. It is based roughly on that (at least for me). It is based on who is involved, the wuality of the arguments base don policy and such. For me to close this as disallow, there would probably have to be 15+ people who all came in with a strong oppose vite based soundly on policy. Not saying that all other admins are the same but many do the same thing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry I can't convince you that both precedent and policy are applicable. Precedent because all other countries are blocked (which makes this [Jesus-THIS?] the only one) and policy because it is an inflammatory issue that has escalated to the highest possible authority for name disputes: the United Nations. Now RFCN is many steps below the UN, don't you agree? Look, I think this is a clear case which is also coupled by abuse. Please let others comment as well, and we see. Caution, though: Your note about WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY works both ways... :-) NikoSilver 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, precedent often applies. But, the actions of a single administrator, do you think that counts? If you showed a precedential RFCN, that would go alot further. Also note, I am not the only person who says that precedence does not apply. Thanks for being so civil and appropriate with this. I undrestand it is frustrating (often for all of this). I want to assure you I have nothing against you, or anybody elses opinion for that matter. I just closed based on past experiences on where the conversation was going. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I know Chris, I haven't seen you around in the much troubled Macedonia-related articles. BTW, do you like my starred article? My other one? Your feedback will be valuable there too. Sorry if I sounded harsh, it's just that "Macedonia" is obviously a contentious issue where I come from. For ages that is... NikoSilver 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Username problem

Hey, just wanted to say I'm in bed at the minute (got work tomorrow!) so thats why I'm not replying to your comments on my talk page, I will reply tomorrow. By all means speak to chris or high about this. I hope theres no hard feelings about this - tomorrows another day in the office RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add, if you've got any immediate concerns, by all means take it to WP:AN or WP:AN/I RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Please do not threaten other members to attempt to get them to perform certain actions. "Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to Macedon7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. {{uhappen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it)" is innapropriate. If you continue these actions, I will block you for threatening other editors. THank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is a normal announcement of my Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution intention a threat? I am going to pursue this issue. That's all I'm saying. Are you threatening me? NikoSilver 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that if you had said you were going to puruse it, that would have been ok. The statement, "Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to happen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it)" is you threatning action if an editor does not comply with you. That is innapropriate and yes, I am telling you that if you threaten another editor that you will perform a certain action unless they comply, I will block you. I have no problem with you pursuing whatever you want to, just dont use it to threaten other editors. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Niko, se parakalo - telinone, de tha yini afto pu thes.--Domitius 01:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am officially dropping the topic. You are welcome to pursue whatever avenue of dispute resolution you so desire. You know that your claim was a threat. If you had state, "I disagree with your decision and intend to puruse arbitration", that would have been an appropriate way to state it that was not a threat. "Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to happen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it)" where you claim if ryan does not comply with you you will pursue arbitration, is a threat. You know damn well that it was. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No no no, it depends where you want to tie "pursue" with. I meant it for the issue, not for ...Ryan of course! I did not intend to be interpreted this way, and I am sorry you "damn well" think so. I am in no position to threaten anyone... I'm a mere user. Are you in such a position? NikoSilver 01:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nikola, skase.--Domitius 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what's going on here? Chris, I'm sure when Nikos said "if you don't..." etc., he didn't mean to use that as the cliché of threatening, but as a factual statement ("if the discussion is closed now, we won't be able to see if a consensus develops"). But sure, in the context of "I will pursue..." it could easily be misread because it has the grammatical form of that threatening stereotype. - On the other hand, Niko, I must join Domitius here, better to let it go. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for your edification and amusement, here's list of user names we currently have. In my eyes, they are all equally poor taste, but there's no policy against them. For me, the fact that "Macedonia" is the name of the country whereas the others use the name of the group isn't much of a difference. The issue is: any user who feels that the role and identity they want to project on Wikipedia is so closely bound to their role and identity as a member of a certain ethnic group or nation that they must trumpet that connection out through the choice of their name, has a problem with what Wikipedia is all about. It's like waving a big flag with "I'm a single-purpose POV-pushing account" written on it. And that's exactly what most of these are. No difference whether they call themselves "X-ia" or "X-ian" or "X-ese patriot" or "X4ever" or "X 4life" or "X-ian pride" or "proud X-ian" or "X warrior" or whatever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

With significant edit history
  1. Macedon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (Romanian)
  2. Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (RoM)
  3. Macedonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (RoM)
  4. Macedonian Empire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (RoM)
  5. Macedonian876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (?)
  6. Makedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (RoM)
  7. Makedon45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (earlier name of User:Macedonia)
  8. Makedonas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (Gr)
  9. Makedonec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (RoM)
  10. Makedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (RoM)
  11. Makedonia1903 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (RoM)
  12. Makedonija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (BUL)
  13. Makedonski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (?)
Marginal
  1. Macedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (1 edit)
  2. Macedon5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (4 edits)
  3. Macedon7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (3 edits)
  4. Macedone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (4 edits)
  5. Macedoniagreece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (4 edits)
  6. Macedonian Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (2 edits)
  7. MacedonianSoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (1 edit)
  8. Macedonians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (3 edits)
  9. Makedon- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (4 edits)
  10. Makedonac4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (3 edits)
  11. MakedoneF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (1 edit)
  12. Makedonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (2 edits)
  13. Makedonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (1 edit)
  14. Makedonno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (1 edit)
  15. Makedonom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (3 edits)
  16. Makedonomaxis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (6 edits)
  17. Makedonomaxos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (3 edits)
No contributions
  1. Macedon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  2. Macedonia06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  3. Macedonian makedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  4. Macedonian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  5. Macedonianhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  6. Macedonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  7. MakedoN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  8. MakedonS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  9. Makedonce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-
  10. Makedonsko devojce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)-

I agree FP, you know I do. Thanks for the heads up. When people reach the point of deliberately misinterpreting your words in order to cut you off, then you definitely have to pass. "It was a threat!" Yeah right, I "threatened" that we'd have to start all over... NikoSilver 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Niko, would you like to start the RFCN again, as I said yesterday, todays a new day and you do great work on RFCN and I hope you continue to do so, you have my conent if you wish to bring it up again, regards RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words Ryan. I can't be bothered right now to go through all of it from scratch. That's why I requested you revert yourself yesterday. We can't RFCN people every day, and your consent would probably place me in the awkward position of violating WP:POINT. An admin candidate should know that; good luck with your RfA. NikoSilver 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think it would be WP:POINT as I'd be supporting you, I am more than happy to open it up myself if you so wish, anyway, we could wait a few days if you want and then reopen it? When everyones tensions all round have calmed down and we can start afresh with it. Each person put there opinion first and then maybe just let consensus run? I think that would be the best way. Would you like me to talk to High and Chris about it? I think it would bebest if we left it to a neutral party to close it, cheers RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be much better to let everybody cool off from the (first!?) edit war in WP:RFCN over closing a case. How about we make a subpage and work on the arguments until then? e.g. here: User:NikoSilver/Macedonia. Then we can copy it in RFCN again. Also, we could liven up the country-username discussion in WT:U. I had started it, but I was given the answer than "we won't change the policy for 1 user and I should go to RFCN". So I did, and here's where we are now. How do you think that makes me feel? NikoSilver 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good idea, could you mention it on the main WP:RFCN page? By all means place diffs to show that I agree with reopening the case. Again, I've got work tomorrow so won't be able to comment on anything tonight as I'm about to go to bed, but your idea is great, on a subpage, it can run for as long as we need RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to that, by all means add to the thread on WP:U talk page, it should be discussed, again, I will look into it tomorrow and comment RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually here it's later... UTC+3. There's no rush, we'll work on it in the next days; I'll let you know. Goodnight. NikoSilver 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss before revert

See Talk:Cypriot Civil War. I'm not convinced of the validity of the article, but nationalist tag team reverting is so passé. - Francis Tyers · 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the talk man. E-mail chats with blocked users are more passé. Plus you're rv-ing without knowing what you're actually doing, aren't you? See talk in a jiffy... NikoSilver 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moonbot

Yes, I agree with you that this username was unacceptable, hence why I voted Disallow. I just didn't see anything in WP:U or other policy (other than WP:SNOW, which should be used sparingly) allowing the discussion to be closed early, which was why I disagreed slightly with your comment. But I agree with you in principle. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. Something like this:
  • Usernames which falsely imply a Wikipedia function, such as adminship, bureaucratship, or a bot, are eligible for Speedy Disallow. Users with such usernames may be blocked immediately by an admin without going through RfCN; any RfCN opened on such a username will be eligible for early closure.
Or maybe an equivalent of db-tagging for such usernames - this would certainly reduce the backlog at RfCN. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting - I hadn't thought of making it a formal policy proposal. It's certainly a possibility, but I'm not sure it would get enough support to be added to the policy; major WP policy changes are notoriously hard to achieve, and most fail. But if you think it's worth it, then I'll float the idea at WT:U tomorrow. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, although I also thought the same should apply to accounts that impersonate admins or other official WP functions, as well as fake bots. Better to be consistent. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm generally uncomfortable with WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, since they give admins a certain degree of discretionary power. I feel that process is important in itself, and as such it's always better to have a clear policy for specific common situations. And this situation is sufficiently common that there's no reason not to have a rule for it. However, I would tend to agree that it's not worth the palaver of trying to establish consensus for a change in policy, so unless you think it's a good idea, I probably won't make it a formal proposal. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On a random note about the speedy disallows of names with bot in them. Some people bring questionable ones to WP:RFCN. The other day, we had one "fattabbot". It ended in but but abbot is a name. There was no consensus to disallow and the name was not blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to message on my talkpage) OK I take your point, it's probably not worth trying to quantify all the situations in which SNOW might be applied to an RfCN. As Chris points out above, the reason we have RfCN, rather than just blocking every dodgy username at first sight, is because mistakes can be made, and not all usernames that appear questionable are actually in direct violation of WP:U. How about a simpler provision, probably under WP:RFCN rather than WP:U:

  • If at least 5 users have commented on an RfCN and there is a unanimous consensus to Disallow, then the closing admin may exercise his or her judgement in closing the RfCN early. This should be applied in cases where there is little or no doubt as to the impropriety of the name.

I'm not saying that the above should necessarily be added to the policy, but I think it's a good guideline for RfCN users and admins to follow. I might write a WP essay on it. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:NikoSilver/Macedonia

The above page is very interesting, had a quick look at the Rfc for Macedonia as well. Can I make a suggestion to you? Why don't you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Username policy? You might like to show the precedents as well to back up your idea. It would be a very good idea to discuss this issue, because at present, there is no clear definition for countries with usernames in at WP:U Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the above page being used for a rfc or some other purpose? or just a gethering of information? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is this Rfc, I think the page relates to that Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are these suitable precedents [5][6]?--Domitius 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Romania is as it was blocked for a username violation, User:Romanian isn't as it was blocked for trolling and probable sockpuppetry Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You gotta understand. If i do something as an admin, with no community consensus, that does not really mean alot when it comes to precedent. I could get pissed off and block everybody with Chris in there name. (I wont do that). Find a previous rfcn about a country where the community discussed it, that would be precedent. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with you there chris, when I said precedent above, I got words muddled and was meant to say examples (not precedents) of usernames with countries in that have been blocked. I personally can't see any problem with these names as the current policy stands, and I don't feel theres need to change it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Re precedent of discussion, we have this discussion (read below, not just the diff) in WT:U among valued members of the community that lead to the cull of 94 country-names. NikoSilver 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Romania was already in the list. I didn't notice it as I was looking near the end of the list because I thought it was organized alphabetically - turns out it isn't.--Domitius 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Chris and Ryan. For the moment, see that you are quoted in his userpage among those who "have also acted on behalf of Wikipedia to make your voices heard against the Greek fabricators who continue to spread anti-Macedonian and facist propaganda on this encyclopedia". This is beyond words. I rest my case. NikoSilver 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've brought that new version of his userpage up at WP:ANI, and I'm inclined to delete it again. Let him keep the name if he must, but let's stop him soapboxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FP you are constantly deleting all my evidence! How am I supposed to show people that I'm no elephant? NikoSilver 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, for everybody, please check the policy that it clearly states "potentially inflammatory or offensive". I remember someone (Mel Etitis, I think) in that RFCN said that frequently "it is the offendee who is at fault". Well, can an Eskimo say that we "are wrongly offended" when while receiving our hospitality he slept with our wife? (typical custom of the Eskimos) Are 1 million protesting "offendees" in Thessaloniki "wrongly offended"? My point is that ethics uses subjective criteria. What is offensive for one, may not be for another. It is really silly to suggest that people are "wrongly offended", because there is no objective definition for wrong and right. NikoSilver 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Epirus

Niko, any chance you can share some thoughts on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aldux#Northern_Epirus

Regards,

Φilhellenism 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Section

NIKO EPEIGON!!!!! Απίστευτες βλακείες γραφουν καποιοι χρήστες για τον Μακεδονικο Αγώνα και για τον Γερμανό Καραβαγέλλη. Προσπαθησα να διορθόσω λίγο την κατασταση αλλα δεν ξέρω εάν τα κατάφερα!! παρακαλώ βοήθεια!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanos_Karavangelis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Struggle_for_Macedonia

Signing to archive NikoSilver 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordu, Ayran, etc.

Hey buddy, you're new to me. How are you doing? So you just happen to see my contributions on 5-6 articles and decided that you found faults with every single one - no discusion of course - and just reverted cause you felt like it huh? OK. cool. I know who I am dealing at least. --Oguz1 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

...an "when-sees-extreme-POV-reverter-to-the-consented-version" perhaps? The question is who the rest of us are dealing with... NikoSilver 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That was not a personal attack. I simply do not understand what you are saying above, maybe you should translate it to plain old englsih. What you are you saying? Regarding your reverts, show me on any discusion where the "concensus" was reached. --Oguz1 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensuses are reached globally for certain things. There's a throughout-wiki policy that all relevant names are listed. Also, consensuses are reached by users in the edit summaries and in the edits themselves. When you're outnumbered, it is you that has the burden of proof to convince your edits are ok. Not vice versa. Regarding your previous edit here, it was an NPA by all definitions. NikoSilver 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not up to me to disprove claims that are unsourced and inserted originally by Anonymous people (as in Ordu, and Şebinkarahisar). If someone wants to defend that claim, they need to bring me NPOV and unbiased sources..not the other way around, that's ridiculous. Can you imagine peple having to disprove every little claim made on a page? this thing would explode in 3 seconds. Besides, it's WP Rules and you know that. There's no such thing as concencuson facts. 2+2 always equals 4, not 5. Why would you want to revert to a version made by anonymous version (Şebinkarahisar) anyway? Do you mind answering that? See here(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Eebinkarahisar&diff=70728065&oldid=65942541) Same goes for Ordu. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ordu&diff=77173579&oldid=76035251) --Oguz1 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I have no idea about the diffs you provide. The first I never edited, and from the second's article I observed that you removed sourced information to substitute with poorly formatted POV. Now please go and discuss these where applicable (i.e. the article talkpages), so that all users can respond. Not here. NikoSilver 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed it on the Article page....A LOT. And now I am discussing it here because now you made a revert youself and got yourself into the POV discussion. BUT, you are not discussing anything, ARE YOU?. If you are, I would like to hear your view on why the sources used are NPOV. And neither DIFF link I provided even has my name on it. What are you talking about my POV edit? I never ADDED anything POV. You are the one making POV reverts that are made by ANOYMOUS and UNSOURCED. --Oguz1 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The diff of my revert speaks for itself as to what is sourced and what is poorly formatted and unsourced. Now DON'T SHOUT and leave me alone please. Enough! NikoSilver 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested on learning how to be rude on WP, they can view this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NikoSilver&diff=113931434&oldid=113930943. --Oguz1 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This one is better: [7]. NikoSilver 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Cheers for the congrats! No doub you will have opposed me! ;-) Anyway, hows the Macedonia thing getting along? Can I be of assisstance? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I don't oppose people based on single incidents. I only vote for (or against) people I know better than that. For Macedonia, check my additions to our last talk 2-3 sections above, and the subpage for new data added lately. I am still trying to understand where we could be wrong about that reasoning... NikoSilver 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Transliterations

I saw your transliteration changes. You've mainly replaced i's with e's. While your version is correct (also) there's been quite a lot of argumentation o the issue of Greek transliteration, and currently WP uses the i's. There are thousands of articles with Greek in them, so I would suggest you re-edit and post the previous version for consistency. Other than that, no-biggie from my side, and I really don't care so much.

Για να βρούμε την χρυσή τομή θα βάλω αμφότερες μεταγραφές. H greeklish μεταγραφή πάντως είναι απλώς λάθος.Ουκ εν τωι πολλωι το ευ. Η αγγλική Wikipedia νομίζω οτι είναι για τον λοιπό πλανήτη ως επί το πλείστον. Η αγγλική Wikipedia σ'ολα τ'αρθρα -πλην μάλλον αυτών που γράφουμε εμείς οι νεοέλληνες- χρησιμοποιεί άλλη μεταγραφή. Ο λοιπόν πλανήτης έχει λοιπόν ήδη μια μεταγραφή από ελληνικά στα αγγλικα η λατινικά.Και μάλιστα την σωστή. Ένα απ'τα άπειρα επιχειρήματα κατα των greeklish εν τοιαύτη περιπτώσει είναι ότι στο αγγλικό αλφάβητο ηχητικά i = (κυρίως) άι.

Παρεπιπτόντως, πιθανώς να ήθελες να διαβάσεις την πολιτική για τα ονόματα χρηστών. Φαίνεσαι αξιόλογος χρήστης, και επειδή το όνομα που διάλεξες είναι στο όριο της αποδοχής, πιθανόν η εικόνα του να κάνει άλλους χρήστες να σε αδικήσουν πριν δουν τις συνεισφορές σου.

Περί του ονόματος ουδείς λόγος.Σ'όποιον αρέσουμε.Το επίθεμα 666 ετέθη κυρίως επειδή σκέτο θάνατος κατειλημμένο.Αλλά και λίγο τσιτωμα στις θεούσες δεν βλαπτει :-)

Για οτιδήποτε χρειαστείς, η σελίδα συζήτησής μου στη διάθεσή σου.

Νάσαι καλά φίλε.Ευχαριστώ για την υποδοχή.Θα επικοινωνώ όποτε μπορώ. :) Τσάγια

heterochronised signature-tag Thanatos666 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Regarding the 'pit' vs. 'well' issue, could I trouble you to make the change, instead? I don't want to run the risk of the edit being considered in violation of 3RR (that particular attempt at discrediting was already tried by someone disreputable).Arcayne 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hey :) sorry I didn't reply immediately, I've been having a think about usernames with countries in. I fully see your concerns with User:Macedonia, but I really do believe that this username doesn't infringes on policy. It doesn't say anything about supporting Macedonia and the only thing which the user could be against is POV (no reason to block for a username), this is my same opinion for all usernames with countries in, without giving an offensive comment. Shall we try and start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Username policy? These are just my opinions and I think it would be better to get further community views. I would like to add that I think you've put a great ammount of effort into this - good job (I might be asleep by the time you reply - uni tomorrow!) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You actually make a very good point about country names implying authority - one which I never thought of. I'm sticking by my guns that its not inflammatory, because it makes no statement to support (or defame) the country. Any idea of what time your going to be on tomorrow (UTC time of course!) because we'll bring this up at WP:U? Could you get a few precedents sorted out of blocked usernames in new subpage? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was a really good statement, I do agree with you on many aspects, I just think we need clarity on the whole subject, but its pointless running to WP:U with a half thought through proposal. I'm in uni till 5 UTC so could you try and be on then? I think it would be best to copy just the list of username country blocks into a subpage so we can use this as a precedent to add it into policy Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Greek dialects

Για την Μακεδονική διάλεκτο στη ελληνοφωνία, κοιτά τον χάρτη στην ιστοσελίδα [8]. Είναι σελίδα φόρουμ των φίλων και γειτόνων μας των σκοπιανών. Η συγκεκριμένη σελίδα αφορά την, κατ εμέ, λανθασμένη επιβεβαίωση της χώρας τους σε παλαιούς χάρτες. Στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση κοίτα τον 3 χάρτη της τελευταίας σειράσ. Το κλου είναι στη επιγραφή - η γλώσσα στον χάρτη: Macedones, ο τίτλος του χάρτη : Griechische Dialekte. |Αυτός ο χάρτης μπορεί να παρουσιασθεί σε άρθρο για την ελληνική μακεδονική διάλεκτο, και μάλιστα με γειτονική προέλευση. Politis 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ναι. Τι πηγή είναι? Μοιάζει για σελίδα από Γερμανικό βιβλίο. Γράφει ποιο είναι? Θα μπορέσουμε να την ανεβάσουμε? (θέλει άδεια) NikoSilver 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an historical atlas for use in schools, from 1928. Der "Putzger" - fond memories of my own schooldays, except we were obviously using a more recent edition. The dialect data is ascribed to an author whose name I can't quite read there: Bulach? Balach? Buloch? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Danke Future. Can you use your superpowers to find a copy? Can we upload it being so old or do we need a license? NikoSilver 21:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Haven't got one here. As for upload, it might be pd, depends on whether copyright is measured after date of publication or after death of author. The map might be quite outdated of course; most of the more recent treatments certainly don't place Greek that far north (see sources at Greek dialects, like this: [9]). We'd really need to find out who that "B*l*ch" authority was and where he stood within the history of the field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I suppose the "bitch" allusion wasn't meant to be pun, huh? :-) Thanks FP, will try to find more. NikoSilver 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be reading?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On usernames and SNOW

I've been thinking some more about our earlier discussion on RfCNs, and when a dodgy username is eligible for speedy blocking per WP:SNOW. I've concluded that there is a difference between the different types of prohibited username under WP:U, and that not all of them are snowable. Quite a high proportion of the usernames at WP:RFCN are nominated because someone finds them offensive, usually because of profanity, potential sexual connotations or racial or religious slurs. However, those kinds of usernames may be considered inappropriate by some users but perfectly acceptable by others, and sometimes users are allowed to keep usernames that violate the letter of WP:U - look at User:Gay Cdn, a respected editor who even applied for adminship at one stage, despite having a username that I would regard as inappropriate. So those kind of usernames should always pass through the RfCN process. Those which impersonate an official Wikipedia function, on the other hand, such as "Joe Admin" or "Fredbot", should be speedily blocked - this is because their inappropriateness is objective, and unlikely to be seriously questioned. So that's why I think that specific rules on the use of "speedy disallow" are needed at RfCN. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We are also discussing with Ryan about country-usernames. There are 113 blocked precedents, but there is no mention in the policy. I think that simple clear-cut rules for WP:U are indeed needed. If you manage to highlight the "objective"ness for Admins, bots etc (while also highlighting possible exceptions such as "Joe Abbot" or "madminister") I'll definitely support. After all, everything in WP is reversible. Even if an admin wrongly blocks an "Abbot" or something, we can definitely revive him and apologize! For the other thing, check User talk:NikoSilver/CountryUsernames. NikoSilver 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
About your NikoSilver/CountryUsernames page: perhaps it would be helpful in terms of assessing "precedent" if you could distinguish in the list how many of these names were actually ever created by users, and which are just Pschemp's doppelgaengers. Is there really any other precedent of a user besides Mac. that really tried to use such an account? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll search here towards the end of the list (earliest ones) and I'll include that too. NikoSilver 11:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jesusfreak

Shouldn't that one not be allowed, given all the other blocked Jesus freak user names? --Kukini hablame aqui 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Awwwww! The guy definitely has good intentions. What do you suggest? NikoSilver 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion...we not block any more "Jesusfreak"s based on the username, if we consider this one OK. Or, we block all others as impersonating this one. We need to treat WP:U as applying in the same way for all. --Kukini hablame aqui 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with your last sentence of course... Note that from the beginning I wasn't confused by the Jesusfreak series; I knew that they may have been well intended. It's just that I find they are all too easy to be misunderstood by many others. So, why not talk to him first anyway and see what he wants? NikoSilver 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that intentions are not something we should try to judge with usernames. I think it is more about coming up with policy that applies to all in a fair and even manner. --Kukini hablame aqui 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. By "well-intended" I meant that they are not offensive in the context originally intended. Since they may be offensive in other contexts, then off they go. So, what do we do with this guy? We talk to him, or do we follow your suggestion changing the reasoning for the others? (how?) NikoSilver 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Temp Page

Niko, I do need your help very much for this to work. I would like to ask you and Mardavich to write a two page summary of each section that will be focused on in the Temp Page. Have a little faith in me - I want this to work, and you can see how the constant bickering by people who hate the way the movie was made or the GN keeps us from also addressing parts like plot and production. Help me to make this work. Your input is both valuable and necessary.Arcayne 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Solun

Yes I was sure someone from the south will answer really fast :D. I think the bulgarian name of the city can stand next to the greek because, it (Solun / Thessaloniki / Salonika whichever you wish) is connected with the bulgarian history since the Middle Ages. That's my oppinion in 2 words. This is not so important ... it is but it's not worth the time and explanations and I know I won't accomplish anything.BraikoT 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes my e-mail is enabled. I don't know Funkyfly but TodorBozhinov writes mostly true stuff so I don't know what do you mean. Patriotism has nothing to do with the historical truths. I thing this argument is meaningless ... from Solun we will jump to Macedonia and etc. As you can see I haven't changed anything - it's Thessaloniki OK.BraikoT 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

300

Oh, I do want it archived, but it seems that people will keep right on bitching right on the cleaned up page unless it ties off. The contributor posting about Herodotus, and the Temp Page being largely ignored (and the resulting two days worth of wasted space - AGAIN, and all of that after an archiving) tells me that simply archiving, and clearly defining what is not germane to the article -and therefore will not even be discussed any longer - is vital. For Pete's sake, someone put not one but TWO maps up on the Talk page! People kept shouting about how there was no concensus about the Temp Page, and that is why no one followed it, just like a little kid decides they won't like vegetables that their parents won't. We need to define, crystal-frakkkin'-clearly what isn't going to be talked about anymore, and put it at the top of the page. And then work with that framework, and then just removing comments that ignore it. I am tired about someone thinking the film is calling Xerxes a fag. It's just stupid and wasteful. We risk losing good editors when we don't do anything about the chuckleheads who continually post arguments that haven't single thing to do with the article, and never are going to have anything to do with the article. We need to take action now. We aren't close to even GA status because we haven't imposed any rules on the Talk Page, and it needs to happen, or the thing is just going to collapse under its own weight of personal slights and condescending retorts. Arcayne 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and archive it again. :)
And your description of the movie makes me wonder...did you see a dubbed version of the film? I ask, because I thought that Xerxes' voice (freaky deep, like that guy from Underworld, whose voice is natural, actually) and size (the guy looked like a giant in the film) were digital modifications. If you heard a thin, reedy voice, and it was a dub or something, then we might be happening on part of the problem. And I think the hands on shoulders thing was a "fatherly gesture," and without any sort of massaging going on. lol Arcayne 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I see people interpret the Slate article, the more i am thinking that better articles must exist outside of this hateful little gnat's interpretation. Anyway, I archived stuff. Now, let's set to framing what will be discussed, and what will not. We need to do this rather quickly. Arcayne 22:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Greeks and Hellenic Polytheism

If you look at the YSEE Reference, it is really an MSNBC video clip. As far as I have known, MSNBC is a credible news station. If MSNBC says that there are 100,000 Hellenistic polytheists (or Dodecatheonists; whatever you choose to call them), it should be considered a credible npov source. I'm not saying its 100% true (after all it is only an estimate). If there are 100k of them in Greece, they should be represented on the page, after all there are 90-something thousand Muslim Greeks, and they get recognition as a minority Thegreyanomaly 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean here. Where does it mention the 100,000? And if it does, who does it quote? Don't you think that all this would be at least heard here in Greece? It's totally unheard of, apart from the issue in Acropolis, and what the polytheists themselves claim. We can't take that seriously now, can we? NikoSilver 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
PS, I saw the reporter in video#2 saying "No one knows exactly how many pagans there are here in Greece, but their leaders estimate there are about 100,000 followers, in this country of nearly 11 million." Surely you are not citing that quote, as MSNBC's opinion, are you? NikoSilver 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

300 / Xerxes

Hullo -- I see you've added a string of footnotes to establish his androgyny. Presumably this was because of the talk-page controversy re: the character's sexuality, but that seems to have died down, and the effect on the page is a bit unwieldy. Would you be willing to choose one or two of your favorites, and chop the rest? Thanks, --Javits2000 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Niko - the string of footnotes needs to get addressed, bud. I am sure you would prefer to be the one choose one or two that meet the needs of the statements, rather than leave it to someone else. The article is being peer-reviewed, so soone would be better. :) Arcayne 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hullo -- I've left the one citation that has full wiki-formatting ("after Elton") and cut the rest. Of course, feel free to tinker if you'ld prefer something else. Best, --Javits2000 09:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Because you have to establish fair use for every picture that's copyrighted, and you'd never do it with 4 images in a plot section, especially one that's 700 words long. Images should never be eye candy, they should reflect an encyclopedic purpose. Generally, you don't need an image in the plot section either, but more FACs let it slide with good fair use rationales.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that diff was the fastest way to find out! :-) Thanks (although still puzzled as to what the limit is/should be). NikoSilver 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally, it's 1 image, unless the plot can substantiate the use of two. I'm not sure if 300's plot will when it comes time for a GA review, but we'll find out. Generally you see two images in plots that are longer, because the film is a little more complex.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Prophanity -> Profanity

Hehe, good catch here[10], I added those links a few days ago and I guess I had a brain fart when it came to spelling. Thanks. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Amfipoli

Hi, I added a paragragraph in the article Amfipoli. Could you look at and maybe it edit? It's the last paragraph. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfipoli Thanks! Neptunekh 07:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

About the information I got on Amipoli, I'll delete it if it will make everyone happy. I don't mant to cause trouble. Neptunekh 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok that merge sounds great. I promise I won't copywrite anymore. Would you mind looking at these 2 Greek articles I added paragraph in there. Kirra and Nea Potidea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirra_%28Fokida%29%2C_Greece

I agree to the merge.Neptunekh 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:26 (UTC)

15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Talk moved to User talk:NikoSilver/Signature shop/Kukini.

15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ela

Just to say I started a new site and forum for football ect, you are invited ofcourse and anyone else you want to bring!

http://barmedfootball.informe.com/index.php

Hope to see you on there!

# Reaper7  

15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Listen, just on a note, I had thought that the TR Settlement article was a non-issue since it truly seemed as a fork of Cyprus dispute, surely you must see this? I had no ill-intent of POV-pushing in my mind when I nominated it and precisely said "merge (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute". I was doing cleanup among new articles and WPTR ones, and nominated another one right after. It had nothing to do with being anti-Greek or anything, you have my word on that. However, I also would like to note for the record that I find it a bit troubling this sudden surge of interest in Turkey-related AfDs, I honestly had thought that this tension between Tr and Gr users (established ones) were over - I am particularly concerned with this unstated assumption of bad-faith of TR editors present on the part of some Greek editors. I hope that I am mistaken, because there was "no secret agenda" - you should know that I am concentrated most of the time on Turkey-exclusive, philosophy related or general upkeep stuff on Wiki.. I nom AfDs and speedy deletions regularly on a wide range of articles, particularly since I regularly check "recent changes" section.. Baristarim 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re

Aha. It will become a seperate article? Please.. See WP:FRINGE - that is really overdoing it. Also see undue weight btw. It is a minority point of view and none of those academics represent a concensus, let alone overwhelming, in academia. Some users are really going out of their way with these. I personally consider that the consistent involvement of so many Greek editors in that range of articles, particularly considering the debate at PGG, is really making it worse by turning Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground (Politis made a remark to that effect in the talk page of that article, might want to read it). I also think it is really weird, including so many fringe theories and giving them undue weight simply because they "get one over the Turks". It is not cool Nikos.. There are better ways to cooperate, rather than going down that path.

For example, you are consistently searching for additions that show Turkey and Turks in a bad light, but none vice versa. If it were about a Greece related article I could understand, but it really baffles me in this case. What is it this obsession? How many Turkish editors are editing Macedonia or purely-Greece related articles and consistently digging up the most fringe sources that show how bad Greeks were etc?

By the way, since you reminded me at an earlier time: Do not use popups for content reverts. Just a note.. Baristarim 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a list of diffs somewhere where Baris was using popups to revert war. What did I do with it?--Domitius 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Re popup-reverts, I never use the same justification twice. My first revert was more than justified through its edit summary. Re article, "fringe" my ass... there are three academics, and the section is already titled "...claims" anyway. Re Macedonia et al hidden threats, the fringe theories are all presented. Feel free to browse for more. NikoSilver 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What Macedonia hidden threats? I have been reverting vandals and POV in those articles for months. AGF? Do you seriously think that I will sink that low to start edit-warring in those articles because of this? In any case, I don't have an obssession with Macedonia or anything, couldn't care less really.. As for popups, exactly: When I have used the popups before, it was for the exact same reason: My edit summaries and reasons were already spelt out. See? You shouldn't have warned me the same way back in the day, that's all I am saying. As for, fringe - it definitely is a fringe theory[citation needed] considering that practically no-one in academia,[citation needed] particularly serious academia[citation needed] refer to it as such - it is to compensate for that the whole section has turned into the exposé of the views of only two guys..[citation needed]it was 3 Anyways, I really wonder where all this anger and energy is coming from Nikos, you are really going out of your way.. Anyways.. Baristarim 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Popups you used for first edits also. I specifically said even then that I don't use them in rv-wars after the first justification, if unanswered (as is the case). Anger? Ex idion ta allotria maybe?

For the rest I added fact tags to show where you're wrong. NikoSilver 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are taking last saturday's football result too seriously :P --A.Garnet 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Some Greek "fans" actually did. Their barbaric behavior was quite detestful, and I feel ashamed to belong in the same ethnic group. I hope our government finds a way to crash these phenomena. NikoSilver 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The result was just because the TR team was cheating like mad! :) --Domitius 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok guys, good laughs, but let's cool it a notch :) Don't want it getting out of hand. As for the article, we can discuss it later I suppose - I am sure that there are more fun things to do for all of us at the moment.
As for the popups, I had taken notice and I am making a point of not using it for a first revert.Baristarim 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lake Stymphalus

Hi I created an article about a lake in Greece called Lake Stymphalus. Would you mind looking at it and cleaning it or editing it? Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Stymphalus. Thanks! Neptunekh 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested to check Stymfalia and Stymphalian birds.--Odysses (☜) 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of
WPGreece
For your help with WP:GREECE, your great often Aristophanic humor, your interest in Greece-related articles, your FA contributions concerning Macedonia, your courage to firmly stand by your beliefs, and your exciting Nationality quiz I award you with pleasure this barnstar of national pride, waiting again for to see you back more active, vivid, and humorous.--Yannismarou 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

An award by you especially, is an honor of additional value which I probably don't deserve! Thank you Yanni and Kalo Pascha! NikoSilver 13:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

300 (soundtrack)

Hi Nick, I see that you edit 300 (film). Do you know #4. "Returns A King" of the 300 (soundtrack)? --Odysses (☜) 14:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't distinguish which it was from those I heard while watching the movie. What about it? NikoSilver 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The article 300 (soundtrack) says lyrics is in Latin, but I think that is sounds something like "έρχομαι...ποτάμι Ευρώτα ..." but I'm no good in "deciphering" lyrics. Are you? See also lyrics in Mythodea.--Odysses (☜) 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Where can I listen to it? NikoSilver 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I attach to mail?--Odysses (☜) 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sent. Listen to 01:05 to 01:07 --Odysses (☜) 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Too big; hasn't arrived. I'll e-mail you my other address which is unlimited. NikoSilver 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-sent. You may be able to listen or buy here--Odysses (☜) 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 :-( Still it doesn't go through, and the linked file does not play in my PC for some γαμημένο reason. I really don't know how I can help! :-( Grrrr! Happy Pascha! NikoSilver 08:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Καλό Πάσχα!
Now I'm going to prepare the barbeque lamb for tomorrow :-) --Odysses (☜) 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Χριστός ανέστη!

Χριστός ανέστη! --PaxEquilibrium 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hristos a înviat! --Biruitorul 17:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Buona Pasqua! :-)--Aldux 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, from me too - frohe Ostern! --Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Христос Воскресе!   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. --PaxEquilibrium 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thema of Macedonia

A while back there was this lack of info about where precisely was that thema located. I dont know if you have better sources, but I came accross this one: [11].   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a nice informative map; however, it is only a piece of a wider puzzle that extends before and after that snapshot. I think PMAnderson has researched those time periods. In any case, I feel that the jumping-about-like-a-bean of Macedonia is already illustrated in more detail than I would find relative to an article for terminology. Nevertheless, it is definitely worthy information for Macedonia (region)'s history section. I'd be really glad to summarize a stable version of that section into the terminology one. Can you bring it up in the region's talk? NikoSilver 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gray Wolf

Check out the flag of Gokturks also my last message to Kekrops. I made my argument. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that adequately included in the "Turkic legends" part? I find Denizz's compromise quite stable and informative. NikoSilver 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)