User talk:Sysin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image:Hoplite.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hoplite.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ChrisO 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC) -- ChrisO 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Country data FYROM etc.

Please do not re-create these deprecated templates. Your user page was the lone instance in all of Wikipedia that was using them, and they will be deleted again if re-created. Please use the existing standard templates to display the flags on your user page. Andrwsc 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. I am aware of the Macedonia naming dispute, but I could care less about it. What I do care about is the maintenance of the templates created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. Specifically, the system we have created is to include a single instance of "Country_data" templates for each flag, and that instance is named after the main article on Wikipedia. Therefore, we have Template:Country data Republic of Macedonia because the main article for that nation is Republic of Macedonia. Second, any nation that has a ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code for it, will also have a corresponding redirect for that code (in this case, Template:Country data MKD is the redirect). What you did was:
  • create a new, parallel country_data structure that did not point to the main article name
  • create a redirect from an abbreviation that is not in the ISO list
  • use these two main-space templates only to support your user page, which is inappropriate
The correct way to render a different label for the text string when using the {{flag}} template is to use the "name=" argument, as specified in the documentation page. You could have accomplished the same thing on your user page by {{flag|MKD|name=FYROM}}, for example.
I had thought I was doing you a favor by editing your user page so that no redlink was left as part of our WikiProject cleanup process. Instead, you were extremely incivil to me on my talk page. In the future, I shall leave you to clean up any redlinks yourself. However, I will continue to speedy delete any new templates created outside the standard mechanism that are used solely to support your vanity page. Andrwsc 18:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosetta Stone

To be honest, I'm not really happy with your version either because it's basically unsourced mudslinging. If we could have the names and a few quotes from real academics on the FYROM theory, then fine, the facts can speak for themselves. Can you think of anything?--Domitius 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sysin. Καταλαβαίνω. My only worry is that there is so much invented material that comes out that it would occupy endless pages to disprove. Isnt'it better to cut it out from the article and simply create a new one for the ridiculuous, though government backed material? Also remember that many genuine scientists of that country - while loving their land and its name, disagree and disapprove of this type of material/propaganda. (ps. it is better off the page) Filika Politis 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No Sysin, you misunderstood me, I have no problem with mudslinging providing it is sourced. If there is a non-partisan source saying "the FYROM theory is utter bullshit", then fine (we have such sources on their theories on their "sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" theory). Do we have any mainstream sources which are critical of the theory?--Domitius 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the critical text in your version was unsourced (had no reliable source backing it up), so it cannot be included (see WP:ATT and WP:V). Including the FYROM theory as facts is also unacceptable because it violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight (i.e. it's a fringe theory).--Domitius 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - how is it now? There is no proof that their government is involved (I also think it's unlikely - it's more likely the spontaneous effects of decades of brainwashing and people are desperate to cook up their own theories on how connected they are to ancient Macedonia). It's also unsourced that it's scientists in general from FYROM who are making up these theories. Check Alexander Donski for example, the historian without an academic degree in history (according to that article at least). Taking criticism too far just makes people not take what they read seriously.--Domitius 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Better now?--Domitius 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

@Kseris esi...
Ehis apolito dikio. Simfono apolita mazi sou. Stile mou ean thelis ena e-mail na to kanonisoume... Prepi na eimaste enomenoi san mia grothia, outososte na antimetopisoume kathe mellontiki proklisi ( ena 2° ypourg. eks. ) ... :D Ti les? Efharisto. --Asteraki 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please desist

I've just been reviewing your contributions. Your editing record is a pretty awful litany of nationalist POV-pushing, repeatedly deleting the name "Republic of Macedonia" from articles and replacing it with other formulations. Frankly, you're not contributing anything useful. Wikipedia is not the UN, not Greece and not the EU, and it's not bound by the standards of any of those entities. Our use of terminology is governed by WP:NAME and WP:NCON, which is why the Republic of Macedonia article has that title. It's not appropriate for you to be trying to overturn this by stealth, and your edit warring especially isn't acceptable.

I'm therefore requesting that you desist from this disruptive conduct. If you continue you will face action that could lead to you being blocked from Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of Florina

The hypothesis you put into the Florina article regarding its name is very appealing, but if you cannot show any sources, it is just that - a hypothesis. Please mention the sources of this information.  Andreas  (T) 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Svenizelos.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] benaroya dates

thank you for your quick and helpful response. i will investigate the source that you provided further. dgl 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misirkov

I dont understand who are the "sides" at Krste Misirkov? Actually Bulgarian historians are more admitting of the irrational nature of Misirkov. In the Republic of Macedonia he was chosen as the "most important Macedonian figure" of the 20th century: [1] Mr. Neutron 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Kukush

Hello, I would like to avoid an edit conflict so let us reach an agreement. First, the town was liberated not just taken from the Ottomans.

Second, the battle: the Bulgarians were not defeated, this is what the Greeks claim. That was a strategic retreat to better positions. The Bulgarian army was greatly outnumbered by the Greeks and the landscape around Kukush is rather flat. So you might consider it a Greek victory as the battlefield remained in Greek hands but the Bulgarians achieved their aim: to save the army and eventually defeat the enemy.

When the Bulgarians retreated to the Kresna gorge which was a good position, the Greek army was surrounded and only the peace saved it from a complete disaster; the Serbs were defeated at Kalimantsi, so the only reason for the disaster in the Second Balkan War was the interference of Romania and Turkey, not a military success by the Greeks and Serbs. Regards, --Gligan 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The defeat in the war and the loss of territory was not because of that battle but because of the treacherous advance of Romanian and Turkish troops. The Greek army was effectively stopped at Kresna where the terrain is mush more appropriate for a defence than Kukush. In Stanligrad the case is different: Hitler did not allow a strategic retreat and his army was surrounded and destroyed, only a few thousand managed to pull back to the west. At Kukush the Bulgarians saved their army to defeat the Greeks later.
In fact you know the absurd demands of the Greeks and the Serbs to Bulgaria: the first wanted a border at 30 km to the south of Plovdiv and 90 km from Sofia; the Serbs wanted Vidin and a border along the Struma. Only the successes at Kresna and Kalimantsi and later Doiran in WW1 saved the country from at least these claims.
The plan of the Greeks and the Serbs was to take Sofia and dictate the peace terms from there but after the Greek army was surrounded at Kresna, the Greek prime minister hastily agreed to a truce. Regards, --Gligan 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYROM edit

I am puzzled. How is this edit compatible with the footnote you wrote to WP:MOSMAC on the Eurovision Song Contest? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Greek people, who have Greece as their national state and have an elected Government that clearly has an opinion on the matter, are clearly a sub-topic of Greece.sys < in 06:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)