I guess so! :) —Khoikhoi 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Γεια σου Εκτοριαν. Οι Σλάβοι έφτασαν στα μέρη μας τέλη 6ου και αρχές 7ου αιώνα. Όσο για τον Σερμπικους, δεν έχει ιδέα αυτός ο άνθρωπος από ιστορία, μάλλον ουρανοκατέβατος μου φαίνεται. Ακούς εκεί, λέει ότι μας ‘έδωσαν’ (έδωσαν!) την Μακεδονία μετά τον Δεύτερο Παγκόσμιο πόλεμο, κτλπ, κτλπ... Ελεος πιά! Μα τι ούφα κουβαλάει αυτό το θέμα; Φιλικά Politis 17:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out what's going on at the Thessaloniki page... —Khoikhoi 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I miss her. ;) BTW, keep an eye on the Adana page as well. —Khoikhoi 01:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hectorian, I disagree - Tall Armenian Tale is perhaps the most reliable academic source to date. After all, I bet you Inanna herself is involved in it somehow! ;) —Khoikhoi 01:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Ever heard what she said about the Armenians? And I quote, Armenians are already degenerate people.Nobody knows what they are. —Khoikhoi 02:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing funny about genocide, but Fadix's two comments really cracked me up! Did you see them? —Khoikhoi 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unfortunate. As for the Ottoman Empire page, just fagettaboutit. We're too far into their territory (not that I see Wikipedia as a battleground or anything) and people would keep removing it anyways. It's just not worth your time or mine. —Khoikhoi 03:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will. :) —Khoikhoi 05:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why, but what u wrote 'bout Roman Jakobson attracted my interest...maybe cause i have read a lot about him. he mostly worked on the Comparative Literature field. and also, he lived several decades ago, so he is allowed to have made mistakes. but his work was rather important, although in linguistics, another Jewish, Noam Chomsky, offered more. If u know anything that Chomsky has ever said about the 'Macedonian' language, i would be glad to know;) --Hectorian 02:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware Chomsky hasn't written anything on Macedonian. IIRC he isn't particularly interested in the sociolinguistics aspect and generally works only in English. He's more into the "linguistics as a faculty of the mind" deal. One quote I have on my page about the language/dialect issue is "The term "language" as used in ordinary discourse involves obscure sociopolitical and normative factors. It is doubtful that we can give a coherent account of how the term is actually used". Basically saying that the word in popular usage is pretty incoherent, as in there is no particular linguistic classification for "language" as opposed to "dialect" or "idiolect". For Chomskyan linguistics, a nice (and fairly easy and up-to-date) introduction is here. Actually reading Chomsky's work is pretty difficult. He writes very thick prose. :) If you have any other questions, let me know :) - FrancisTyers 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i know how he writes...i had to read works of his for my university studies. maybe the best definition for what a language is, is what someone said (i guess it was Niccolò Machiavelli): language is a dialect with a government and an army...BTW, interesting link;). i will check it! --Hectorian 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe,u are right;). i altered it a bit (without knowing), but i guess it fits in this case: FYROM does not have a navy... --Hectorian 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...phge dyo boltes shmera... o fragkiskos meta thn koubenta allakse ton titlo kai to phge sto ethnic groups in Greece (dhladh allagh xwris shmasia) kai meta egw to phga sto minority groups in Greece. Nomizw ekei pou einai kala einai, alla prepei na prosexoume mhpws ginei pali kamia periergh metakomish.--Avg 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me who's right at the Thessaloniki page? Some anon keeps trying to raise the population number. —Khoikhoi 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. The number in the infobox needs to be corrected as well. —Khoikhoi 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, tell me about it. :) —Khoikhoi 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah man! That's what I do best, "try to make the Turks look small". :p —Khoikhoi 01:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a türkü (Turkish folk song) called "Drama Köprüsü" (Drama bridge) which talks about deeds of a local Turkish man/bandit called "Debreli Hasan" (Hasan of Debre). Do you know about any such bridge today in Drama? --Gokhan 07:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. My mother was in your city some months ago, she really loved and enjoyed. I also want to visit some day. I also would like to see Ataturk's home. Anyway, cheers, thanks. --Gokhan 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this by any chance? —Khoikhoi 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, their discussion was pretty ridiculous. I kind of feel proud of being a "troublesome Jew", however. :p My great-grandmother gave the Russians some trouble back in Europe. I'm not sure what she specifically did, but it had to be one of the reasons why she emigrated.
TDB's ban was mostly because I told an admin about the fourm that Inanna posted, so essentially, it's her fault! Innana's not bothering me...who's she? —Khoikhoi 03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. τόσο πολύ, —Khoikhoi 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pst, i'm giving you an olive branch.Do you have yahoo or something?
Gia koita tis teleytaies syneisfores mou kai kane to idio opou nomizeis... (an katseis pali mesa -egw bgainw)NikoSilver(T)@(C) 21:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Des kai to ar8ro tou telex mhpws mporeis na pros8eseis tipota gia na megalwsei...NikoSilver(T)@(C) 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sxetika me arthro- tha ithela poli na sineisfero. sto bathmo pou einai dinato douleuo sinainetika - den xero an sto siggekrimeno arthro kati tetoio einai dinato.
sxetika me ayta pou diavasa- nomizo iparxoun kapoia sovara lathi.
sxetika me boulgaria (oti briskotan ipo rossiki katoxi mexri to 1979 - einai aplos lathos, os kommounistiki xora sinergazotan stratiotika me ti sovietiki enosi (oxi me ti rossia)kai ayto mono meta to telos toy B pagkosmiou )
den anaferei tipota gia elliniki emploki prin to 1903.
ayta poy grafei sxetika me makedoniki taytotita ktl einai aplos gnomes, den einai gegonota kai nomizo tha itan skopimo ayto na fainetai sto arthro.
de grafei tipota gia othomaniki periodo(sayto boro na boithiso elaxista giati aplos den xero).
sxetika me piges bibliografia ktl: iparxei ena profanes problima- einai toso megali pou gia opoiadipote apopsi borei na brethei kapoia iposimeiosi. epipleon ellines, boulgaroi kai makedones istorikoi grafoun sxedon panta apo ethniki pleyra.
mia lisi tha itan na basistoume apokleistika se anagnorismenous istorikous (mazower, stavrianos ktl) kai ei dinato se protogeneis piges (exo kapoia pramata ipopsi mou).
tora sxetika me "adiamfisvites piges": profanos den iparxoun, alla iparxoun "kales" kai "kakes" piges. pes mou poio thema apo ta parapano se endiaferei sigkekrimena kai boroume na sizitisoume pio sigkekrimena gia piges.
pes mou ki esi ti gnomi sou gi ayta ta simeia --Greece666 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your reply-to make my answer clearer i copy/paste parts of your reply.
a)"no 'Macedonian ethnic group' was ever shown on censa or reported by western (or not) historians or travellers."
its true that no macedonian ethnic group appeared on censa: ottomans did their censa on religious and not on national base.
about the existence or not of a macedonian ethnic group theres a fine book by kriste misirkov and it has been translated into greek. im not suggesting that what misirkov writes is correct or objective- but i think that after reading it its difficult to still have doubts about the existence/emergence of at least a "protonational" feeling in macedonia at the beginning of the 20th century.
b)"have in mind that there were 3 groups: pro-serbian, -greek, -bulgarian. there was not such a thing as pro-'macedonian' group"
sandansky's group is classified by some historians as a macedonian group. various macedonian bands tried to keep a distance from sophia and mistrusted bulgarian officers.
in greek, theres the book "memoirs of a macedonian bandit" - anamniseis enos makedona antarti. it is written by an american journalist who met a man from sandansky's group and it clearly talks about macedonians- the book was written at the beginning of the 20th century.
anyway, the existence or not of macedonian national identity before 1944 is a big debate and this is why i think it might be better to turn to more precise issues.
there are other issues in the article that are far clearer. i think its quite easier to reach a consessus about them:
a) "For a first time and in order to protect the Greek Macedonians and interests, Greece sent officers to train guerrillas and organise militias (Macedonian Struggle), known as makedonomahoi "
i insist that the expression "for a first time" is , at least in my opinion, misguiding. indeed, in the article theres the phrase "Macedonia became a focus of the national ambitions of all three governments, leading to the creation in the 1890s and 1900s of rival armed groups who divided their efforts between fighting the Turks and one another".(thank you for sending me this quotation)
dont you think that the above (correct) phrase contrasts with the first one?
one can still argue that greece did not send army officers before 1904 (i think she did at least in 1897 and possibly during the Crimean war too). anyway, i think the first phrase needs some clarification.
b)"Russia would maintain an occupying force in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia until May 1979": this is simply inaccurate. there were russian officers in bulgaria during the 19th cent (they were of course far from being "an occupying force"). do not forget that russia/ussr and bulgaria fought in opposite in both World Wars. how can one seriously claim that bulgaria was occupied by russia/ussr?
id like to know your opinion on the above. --Greece666 23:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sta Anglika to egrapse - "ремовед троллисх провоцатион" ine "removed trollish provocation" grammeno sta Kyrillika; profanos thimose toso poli, pu to egrapse grigora ke patise "apothikefsi" prin to paratirisi. An ihe to pliktroloyio tu sta Ellinika tha evyene "ρεμοωεδ τρολλιση προωοψατιον". Telex 23:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehis minima. Telex 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Hectorian. :) I saw someone at Talk:Pontic Greeks say the following:
Pontian describes a person who originates from Pontos. Just as a Russian of Russia, an Italian from Italy, and an American from America. Pontic is used to define a region such as The Pontic Alps, and also is used on a historical perspective. Modern day Pontians still consider themselves descendants of Pontos and are extremely proud of their ethnicity so therefore using a regional or historic term such as Pontic would not be right.
But I'll wait to see what Macrakis' opinion is on this. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 03:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gia sas Hectorian, I was wondering if you could weight in your opinion about this: [2]Chaldean 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, I beleive that continuing with the narrow title 'Assyrian' disenfranchises a large proportion of the community who reject the designation and use one of the others. After all, if you read the article. you will see that it explicitly speaks of other designations throughout. Please reconsider this, and know that where I'm coming fromon this. — Gareth Hughes 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
, I beleive that continuing with the narrow title 'Assyrian' disenfranchises a large proportion of the community who reject the designation and use one of the others. - Simply not true. Chaldean 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mou parexeis ypostiriksi sti maxi ton plataion? Koita to sti lista mou. Miskin 01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Euxaristo. Ton exo hdh kataggeilei alla oso pio poly toso kalytera. Miskin 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian, διαφωνώ με αυτό. Αυτό που επανέφερες είναι σοβαρή κατηγορία, και χωρίς πηγή (ακόμα και εθνικιστική), νομίζω ότι είναι καλύτερα να μην το βάλουμε. Επίσης γιατί διέγραψες το σύνδεσμο στο Αμερικάνικο Υπουργείο Εξωτερικών; --Telex 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Όχι βέβαια, σε ενημερώνω. Αν δεν έχουμε αποδείξεις, δεν έχει νόημα να γράφουμε αυτό που πιστεύουμε ότι έγινε (προπαγάνδα). Αν βρεις πηγή, να το βάλεις. Με αυτή τη λογική, γιατί να μην πάω και να γράψω ότι οι Κινέζοι συνωμοτούν να καταλάβουν τον κόσμο ;-) ή ότι ο μπιν Λάντεν δουλεύει για τη CIA; --Telex 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Άσχετα που ξέρεις ότι οι Κοσοβάροι Αλβανοί είναι οι περισσότεροι Μουσουλμάνοι και ξέρουμε ότι οι μουσουλμάνοι κάνουν πιο πολλά παιδιά απ' τους Χριστιανούς Σέρβους. Επίσης, μπορεί οι Σέρβοι οι οποίοι διοικούσαν την περιοχή πριν απ' το ΝΑΤΟ να έλεγαν ψέμματα στην απογραφή, ή το UNMIK να λέει ψέμματα τώρα. Ποιός ξέρει; Για αυτό χρειαζόμαστε καλές πηγές. I'm all for an NPOV version, but unsourced nationalist propaganda, Albanian or Serbian is not NPOV. --Telex 00:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian how can you claim that this is true "many Albanian people went back to Kosovo to attempt to create a mono-ethnic, Albanian state. Today, a majority of the Albanian people support bloodshed and would like to rid Kosovo of its Ethnic Minorities." Where is the neutrality here? where on Earth can you get such facts? Please do not add speculations in the Pristina article. ilir_pz 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kalimera :). ok. Good then. Try to not revert someone else's work then, it means that you like that version and makes you the editor of it, if you do so. ilir_pz 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kalispera, as it is stated in the text, modified by Telex now, we should find sources to see what reasons the sides claim on that. I am sure of one thing: NATO did not force Serbs out, on the contrary. About the rest, I cannot speculate. Still you cannot speculate to say ALL UCK forced serbs out. Relativization of terms cools down hot bloods in the Balkans. I do not support the exaggeration of facts, and using derrogatives. ilir_pz 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to resolution 1244, then you are wrong, as Serbia as a state is not mentioned in it at all. Serbia is not an independent country, and that resolution was written in 1999 when things were different. Do a fast search here and you will know what I am talking about. ilir_pz 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know your reasons. Mine are no less important. That bloody and inefficient 1244 resolution wasted so much precious time. Not sure there is any successful UN mission in the world?! Let us hope Kosovo will be the first. G'night.ilir_pz 01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian, dont you agree with my last edits to Kosovo? I am sure someone will change it, can you please keep an eye on it. Chaldean 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but the agruement I've put out is NPOV, right? I mean, if it was under the control of Serbia i Montenegro, then that would be different, since there constitution sees that country as RoF...but The UN controls Kosovo and we know what the UN names that country. Chaldean 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your neutral involvement in the article. It's a breath of fresh air :-) --serbiana-talk 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is de... I'm kidding ;-) Yes, I like this version, and I hope it stays this way (you know who I'm worried is going to revert it... Ilir) --serbiana-talk 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Recently I have realised that there is a grouping of Turkish nationalists in Wikipedia with the objective of turning Kurdish related articles into Turkish propagandas. Would you like to start a project with me called "WikiProject Kurds" to better organize information in articles related to the Kurds.
Regards. Ozgur Gerilla 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why you are reverting anti-Greek nationalists changes, trying to make page more nuetral? Have you seen the discussion? Let me check.... you are Greek. Too bad Greek propaganda has won over your NPOV attitude.
If you refuse to dispute the neutrality and you remove POV tag, I'll will have to request administrator assistance. Nedkoself bias resist 02:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I meant. How can anyone have anything to do at all with that article with the amount of POV-pushing and the tag-teaming going on? I have given up. As you said, wikipedia is too big and there are lots of other subjects to improve. Best wishes, E Asterionu talking to me? 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hektoriane, ya des ti eyine stin Skopiani Wikipedia. O Realek (eki leyete Aleksandar SK) vandalise ti selida mu. Kseris ti lei:
Aftos o hristis ine enas emovoros Ellinas fasitas o opios psevdos aftoparusiazete os Ellinoalvanos ke o skopos tu ine na afierosi ti zoi tu epitithondas tis Makedonikes selides, afu pliroforiete me ta distiha tu nevra. Tora pu ta leme, to onoma aftu tu hristi ine pithano na itan palya Latinus/Латинец.
Perimeno sholia ;-) --Telex 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPA policy should work across Wikis. Clear case of severe personal attack plus vandalism, report him and get him blocked on both sites. Don't know who to approach on mk, but I think it shouldn't be much of a problem to find an admin who will block for this here on en - provided you can prove the identity, of course. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's Aleksandar SK admitting to being Realek at enwiki. Look, don't bother - check the observations here and here. A pretty brutal regime has been established there, where User:FlavrSavr, an admin-bureaucrat, reverts a Bulgarian user removing the flag "of the Macedonian nation", which is none other than the pre 1995 FYROM flag (which for some reason has been plastered all over the articles on "Aegean Macedonia" and "Pirin Macedonia"), using rollback, and then protects the page [4]. If you're a Macedonian Slav, you can get away with anything there, admins turn a blind eye. See this discussion btw. --Telex 15:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose it may be a bit like that on many of the smaller, single-nation wikis. Haven't checked the Greek one, but to be frank I could imagine something like that happening there too, on some of the more sensitive topics. That's what it means to be consensus-ruled - it's always the consensus of the dominant user groups. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about dewiki? --Telex 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not active there and hardly ever read it. And even if I saw such things happening there, I would probably not notice, because the admins' prejudices would likely coincide with mine.... ;-( But I guess it has a slightly more varied and international membership, which should serve to neutralize things a bit, though perhaps not quite as thoroughly as here. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Syntax Error: Try reading the Greek wp, since you're a polyglot. I'd love your feedback in case you see POV. I think that the Greeks over there are doing a slow but good work on the issues. Apart from the name (el:ΠΓΔΜ) which is arguably most common in Greece (t4 the name of the article), you will see that all appellations are mentioned (even "simply...") in the intro paragraph. The text that follows is far from propaganda too. NikoSilver(T)@(C) 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kane tin kali na bgaleis to tag apo ton Kyrillo kai ton Methodio se parakalo. Ton exo idi anaferei auton gia ta tria ro. Miskin 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Euxaristo! To exei parakanei autos thelo na ton bareso. :) Miskin 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Den eimai sigouros gia poion milas alla sigoura symfono. :) To ksanaebale to zoon, skabei ton tafo tou akoma pio batheia. Miskin 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A kala, auton ton exo sto mati edo kai mines, apo tote pou bandalize to 'ellines'. Anthellinas megas. Miskin 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ti les gia tin metakinisi tou 'greek macedonians' se 'macedonians (greek)'? O telex symfonise. Exei polla pleonektimata. Miskin 12:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's just that you were talking about it. P.S., remember the Turkish Massacres article? It was created by a certain User:Dandanakan, guess who that turned out to be? [5] :p —Khoikhoi 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something was up when she started ranting at Talk:Kurdish people about how KURDS ONLY AMOUNT 5% OF TURKEY!!!! :p —Khoikhoi 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know man, but enough of her! She makes me sick. —Khoikhoi 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of putting comments about the Ottoman name of Crete on my personal Talk page, I suggest you discuss it on the Talk:Crete page. Thanks, --Macrakis 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian, I just posted some interesting info disputing that stuff that our friend Makedonia posted at Telex talk page[6]. Check it out, its interesting. LoL!! Regards. ;) ~Mallaccaos, 8 June 2006
Kalispera Hectorian, how is the weather in Greece? :) It's been long since my last visit to Greece. First of all, thanks for your interest in the WikiProject Kurds I think this project can increase the quality of Kurdish articles. What I would like to ask you is where to start this project. If possible could you please provide information on how wikiprojects work and how to register one (if it's a requirement). Thanks again. Ozgur Gerilla 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Selam.U still have not replied to my call on whether the statistics in Anatolian Turkish diaspora come from UMAK (i am sure u know if they are!). well, the result was, of cource 'keep', without me voting for 'delete'... Anyway, i would appreciate a reply on my question... Thanks. --Hectorian 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Konnichi wa! I have no idea where statistics on Anatolian Turkish diaspora came from. Have you tried reviewing Turkish people? It has some decent citation apperantly. Also if you are sure where they are from, why are you asking me? --Catout 11:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, i am asking u cause i am not sure, and i thought that u may be (since u edit a lot in turkish-related articles). I know about USAK... so, perhaps it would be better to remove the sentence that refers to it in Anatolian Turkish diaspora, since there is no source or link. Regards. --Hectorian 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Νομίζω ότι υπερβάλλεις για τα ονόματα. Η Κωνσταντινούπολη έχει συνολικό πληθυσμό όσο όλη η Ελλάδα, και υπάρχουν και άλλα σχετικά ονόματα (Αρμένικα, Οθωμανικά κλπ). Το θεωρώ υπερβολικό να εξισώνουμε τους 4.000 [7] υπέργηρους Έλληνες της Πόλης με τους 59.000 Τούρκους (από τους συνολικά 130.000 Μουσουλμάνους) της Θράκης. Επίσης, η συνθήκη της Λωζάννης προέβλεπε να μείνει και ελληνορθόδοξη κοινότητα στην Ίμβρο και στην Τένεδο. Δες η Wikipedia πως έχει το άρθρο τους >> Imbros and Tenedos. Το έχει στα Ελληνικά ονόματα, όχι στο Gökçeada ve Bozcaada. Με αυτή τη λογική, θα έπρεπε να μετακινήσουμε τη Komotini στο Gümülcine. Νομίζω ότι καλά είναι τα πράγματα όπως έχουν, και στο κάτω κάτω, δε βλάπτει να έχουμε και ξένα ονόματα. Το μόνο ξένο όνομα που με ενοχλεί είναι η δήθεν «Μακεδονική» γλώσσα των Σκοπίων, επειδή είναι (σκόπιμα) παραπλανητικό Για αυτό δημιούργησα το άρθρο Slavic language (Greece), για να το λέμε Σλάβικη γλώσσα, πράγμα που ισχύει. Το ελληνικό κράτος ουδέποτε αναγνώρισε «Μακεδονική» γλώσσα - αναγνώρισε μόνο Σλάβικη γλώσσα, και οι άνθρωποι που τη μιλάνε Σλάβικα τη λένε (δες το σχετικό άρθρο). --Telex 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since Telex asked me for my opinion, may I butt in here? I tend to recommend usage along the lines of the once-proposed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names) (which unfortunately didn't make it to become a binding convention, afaik, but is quite good nevertheless). Specifically:
"The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."
This sounds reasonable (quoted from above): all alternative names - if used by a sizeable percentage of the population - can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. But I think that my version in Komotini is better literature, tries to be more eloquent. And that, dear filoi kai files, is the end of my intervention re: Komotini. Politis 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is an excessive naming spree; and many could and should be removed. In my view the Turkish name should remain in Eastern Thrace and Rhodes and Kos, where there is a Turkish minority, and probably also in Thessaloniki, for historical reasons.--Aldux 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that alternative names is a very difficult issue in wikipedia. About my reverts in Komotini and my edit summaries, that probably brought this discussion in existance, i have to say that i am a bit confused... When are we allowed to include alternative names? only when a different language speaking minority is present? Komotini has indeed a turkish speaking minority, protected by the Treaty of Laussane and excluded from the population tranfer. in addition, this city was under turkish rule for 6-7 centuries (if i remember well). Istanbul, has now a tiny greek minority (a large one some decades ago, protected by the same treaty and also excluded from the population transfer, but which suffered a pogrom and numbers just 4,000 people-as Telex correctly said). in addition, this city was founded by the greeks, was greek for about 2 millenia, capital of the Greek Empire, and till now the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch. i honestly see no reason to have the turkish name in Komotini and not the greek one in Istanbul. (the fact that the population of the city is more than that of the whole Greece, corresponds to demography-which changes through times-, not to encyclopedic attitude. btw, this way we should include the kurdish name in the first line... be sure that it would not remain there longer than an hour... some users would never allow this, although the number of the kurds in Istanbul is more than 70 times larger than the number of the turks in komotini...). i removed the turkish name from the first line of Komotini in order to make it NPOV: either both alternative names will be mentioned in the capitals of Eastern and Western Thrace-s (Komotini-Istanbul respectively), or none of them. --Hectorian 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian's Thessalian Vlachs were not very keen at all to be engulfed by Greece[edit]
Great job!!! :D —Khoikhoi 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, keep that page on your watchlist. :) It's weird that they have an article about Κχοϊκχόι mythology but not for just the Κχοϊκχόι. You think the Greek Wikipedia is bad? Take a look at the Armenian Wikipedia sometime. They've had that same image of Dali up for almost a year now! I hear that there'a a man in Turkey trying to get students to go on the Turkish Wikipedia, but I guess there's not much of a movement in Armenia. Well, adios. —Khoikhoi 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I said that to Inanna once, and a few days later I get an Istanbul IP address say it back. :D BTW, it's Adios y hasta la vista. ;) —Khoikhoi 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi; another deluded philhellene whose editing sorry to say flagrantly breaches the spirit of wikipedia. As a matter of fact kseroume pios ise kirie KK ala dhen birazei. I'll get back personally to Aromanians to trim it off its - I have to say- all to often too nocive pro-Greek stance
You can just add {{subst:3RR2|[[Kalymnos]]}} next time. —Khoikhoi 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, why are Turkish names in Greek places? How has they been an important part of Turks history? How can you compare that to the long history of Hellenism of so many places that are part of Turkey today? You can't compare 3000 years of history to a mear of 400. Chaldean 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Turkish names should definitely be included in the first paragraph next to the Greek name on articles on places in western Thrace where the Turkish minority (59,000 according to Greek estimates, 130,000 according to Turkish estimates, 90,000 according to everyone else) lives. Everywhere else, if the Turkish name is historically relevant, should be dealt with on a case by case basis. --Tēlex 13:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying that we expect the same thing from the Turkish side. --Tēlex 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian, at last after hundreds of revertings, guys like Telex and of course you added the Greek name to Istanbul article as it should be if we want to have any Turkish names on Greek articles. This is the correct way and the only way. It is totally unacceptable not to inlude the Greek name to a place that used to belong to Greeks for 1000+ years with such an importance, and to inlude ANY turkish names to Greek places. The minute they revert the Greek name from Istanbul article i ll just start again erasing every single Turkish name. Thank you for the support.Mywayyy 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian. The point is that two wrongs don't make one good; we're not putting Turkish names in Western Thrace to make them accept a Greek name in Istanbul; we're putting them because in there there is a strong Turkish minority.--Aldux 10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry..if there will be another pogrom here, i will fight with you against the Turks. Im saying this despite being one of them :) 85.96.136.250 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian, I thought I'd just try to explain to you where I come from in the matter of the Greek and Turkish placename revert-wars.
I'm a linguist. I love placenames. Placenames, in whatever language, are beautiful, friendly, harmless, interesting little creatures that tell us interesting things and hurt nobody. So, in general, I'm a rather strong inclusionist on this matter.
What I hate is to assess inclusion or exclusion of placenames on criteria of nationalist point-scoring, symbolically "laying claims" to a territory, or evaluating the historical legitimacy of some group's link to a place.
We should include placenames not because we want to satisfy the pride of some group that has a "right" to see "their" name represented on Wikipedia. We should include it because it tells us something interesting about the history of a place.
Specifically, I'd support mentioning a foreign placename whenever one or more of the following hold:
it is a linguistically non-trivial variant that has historically arisen from direct contact between multilingual populations in that area (not just a simple transliteration or linguistically predictable phonological adaptation into another language). London-Λονδίνο is boring. Athina-Atina is boring. Symi-Sömbeki is interesting.
it is the language of a significant population group that lives or has until recently lived in the area
the place has some special historical significance for a neighbouring language community.
the place has been legally part of a different state in recent times (where "recent" might mean "within the 20th century," for instance).
the place has been the object of some serious political contention in recent times (wars, irridentist claims etc.). Inclusion on this ground has absolutely nothing to do with judging the legitimacy of either side in the conflict.
On some or other of these criteria, I think most of the Greek-Turkish places qualify. For me, it includes all the Aegean islands that were Ottoman until the early 20th century, no matter how strong the actual Turkish population presence was or is.
Additionally, as a matter of Wiki tactics, I'd say:
Whenever inclusion of a specific placename is requested by a significant number (even a significant minority) of editors, be it for whatever (good-faith) reasons, I find it a matter of basic politeness and cooperation not to obstruct their wish unless there is a very strong particular reason against it.
At the same time, one should be aware of Wikipedia:Lead fixation. While the natural place for mentioning a foreign placename is often the first sentence or lead section, there's nothing magical about that. Especially if the naming situation is complex and requires explanation, placing it somewhere else is absolutely legitimate (see Istanbul). In such a case, fighting over an additional place in the lead is childish, in my view.
So, the upshot of it all is: I'm not going to revert you directly at this point, because I'm heartily tired of the whole revert war, but if anybody else should continue requesting inclusion in cases like Kos etc., I'm going to support them.
Thanks for your response. I still sense in your argumentation a tendency of perceiving the position of a name in the very first sentence as some highly symbolic badge, a sign of "staking out turf". I'd warn against that. I personally don't care too much about the first sentence. Both Komotini and Istanbul treat the naming issue adequately already (as far as I can see at first sight). I think if a name is presented and explained in a prominent place somewhere further down, there's generally little need to have it in the lead sentence additionally.
Hi, Hectorian. Since you seem to be interested in both Greek and Turkish articles, i thought you'd be also interested to edit/watch the Greco-Turkish relations article. During the last time I looked at the article there was a massive propaganda/nationalism from some, apparently Turkish, editors about airspace violations, the tragic death of the Greek pilot, Smyrna, etc etc. I believe your thoughts and contributions on the specific article would be most welcome. Regards.Mywayyy 10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means "I added one". ;) But seriously, look at Cities of Thrace—do you think having Turkish population (past and present) is the only factor in mentioning the Turkish names? I really, honestly think that they're helpful, and that we don't have to look at Istanbul for a guideline on all these pages. —Khoikhoi 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't get all Mywayyy on meeee. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Istanbul!!! —Khoikhoi 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the names don't hurt. As Macrakis says, "The name(s) used by its government(s) historically." This fits the criteria. —Khoikhoi 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because as you know, Istanbul is a TURKISH city and it has always been TURKISH throughout the ages. Adding the Greek name is just an attempt at the Megali Idea! ;) —Khoikhoi 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
alright, take care. —Khoikhoi 02:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Armenia? I think that it would be nice to diversify our membership a bit and include some non-Armenian members. If you do, be sure to place your Wikipedia username under the participation list and next to it the flag from the country that you live in. -- Clevelander 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally do it, but I'm pretty close to 3RR—can you? —Khoikhoi 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, I can show you the Turkish names for every place in Greece I bet. ;) Hey, about the Aromanians, what's the % that don't see themselves as Greeks? —Khoikhoi 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Another question: is there interest amoung the youth in learning the Aromanian language? —Khoikhoi 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then do you think it will soon die out? According to Ethnologue:
Rapid assimilation to Greek culture; children attend Greek schools. 20% live traditionally. No legal status in Greece. Not taught in school except for one course at the University of Salonica. Some revival of the culture in progress since the 1980s. People over 50 are fluent in Aromanian, many between 25 to 50 are passive speakers with limited knowledge of vocabulary and grammar. Some younger ones know the language.
Well, both Manx and Cornish did die out, and unlike Hebrew, isn't doing as well as it should (See Language revival). If I was Manx, for example, I'd really rather do other stuff than learn a language that only about 200 people speak. No, I don't speak Hebrew, keep in mind that my ancestors either spoke the language of the country they came from or Yiddish, the revival of Hebrew is just in Israel. However, I do know "shalom". :p —Khoikhoi 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "soon". ;-) —Khoikhoi 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement I removed is not from the article referenced. The reference refers to an earlier statement and has been displaced by later editing which was outrageously POV pushing. Roydosan 07:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is accepted Historical scholarship 'pov' pushing. The Eastern half of the Empire maintained it's own Greek character in language and culture even before Diocletian's splitting of the Empire. You Catholics, always trying to Latinize Greek History.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:24, 27 June 2006 (talk • contribs) 86.138.0.221
It is certainly NOT about trying to Latinize Greek history and is not about trying to deny the Greek nature of the empire - see my comments below. Roydosan 08:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
OK, i got what u mean about the reference. however, i cannot understand why u made some other changes: [9]. it was indeed seen by its citizens as the Greek Orthodox Empire that continued the Roman Empire ('Greek Orthodox' does not necessarily mean 'ethnic Greek'), to such an extend that many claim that it was in fact a theocratic state.
I don't disagree with you that it was seen as a theocracy but the term Greek Orthodox is inaccurate since the correct name is Rum Orthodox Church - so they wouldn't have seen it as a Greek continuation of the Roman Empire as you say.
this is not actually true. Rum Orthodox Church is the name that the Turks (and possibly others-Kurds, etc- in the Levant) give to what the rest call 'Greek Orthodox Church'. of course, the Byzantines would never have called it this way (the term 'Greek' is not a name that the Greeks self-identified with- i am sure that u know we call ourselves 'Hellenes'). but here we have to edit according to the terminology in english, so, we could probably solve the issue by saying 'Roman Orthodox Church' with an internal link redirecting to 'Greek Orthodox Church' (i really think that this would, however create problems, since there is also Roman Catholic Church...
in addition, the Byzantine Empire is really the continuation of the Hellenistic world (or of the Roman East, if u prefer... or maybe of the Hellinized states of the Diadochi), in terms or culture, language, literature, customs, and people (acknowledging that the Greeks were undisputably the dominant ethnic group-in a multiethnic state, as every empire is). lastly, it is considered, by the vast majority of scholars, part of the the Greek History.
Again I have to disagree - it was a continuation of the Graeco-Roman world but it was certainly not a continuation of the Hellenic States. The problem I think is that people confuse the term Roman for Latin when in fact they are not necessarily congruous. One could be anything but a Latin and still be an avowed Roman. See [10] for an excellent articulation of the problem. The Byzantines did not have a problem with being Greek speaking, Orthodox and identifing as Romans. In fact they viewed the Holy Roman Empire and the other Western States as barbarians whereas they were the true Romans - but it was an understanding of Roman that goes beyond what most people think of as defining Roman today. It often excluded the Latin identity people associate with Roman.
U are right, i had not seen it this way... Even though (maybe this is my POV) it was indeed a continuation of Ancient Greek and Hellenistic world (Through the Graeco-Roman world) we cannot have it in the article like that.
Concerning this edit [11]...: why? do u believe that the contemporary western Europeans refered to it always as 'Empire of the Greeks'? come on! the Roman Empire was also called simply 'Rome' by its contemporaries... The same goes for the French, Russian or Japanese Empires.
Again I think it is disingenuous to refer to the Byzantine Empire as Greece. There was not a state that called itself 'Greece' until the 1820s. The Byzantine Empire was not Greece (in the terms of being a nation state) although Greeks were certainly the dominant ethnic group. If their contemporaries used Greece then they would be referring to the Greek region not the state. This is also a very Western centric view - their closest neighbours in the East always referred to them as Romans.
The neighbours in the east referred to them as Romans , but with 'Roman' meaning Christian for them (the muslim view identifying nations with religions). u are right by saying that there was not a state being called 'Greece' until early 19th century, but the term 'Hellas' ('Greece' in english translation) was a name attributed from ancient times to the areas that were considered the center of greek culture (i.e. excluding the colonies, however compare the term Magna Graecia). what i mean is that even though the Spanish Empire, as an example, covered large areas in 5 continents, its contemporaries used to call it simply 'Spain'. or another example, since i see u are from the UK, most of the times greeks refer to the UK simply as 'England' (and in maps-mainly older maps, but still published after WWII, the UK is written simply 'England'). i am not sure that i was clear enough... i hope u got what i mean (they did not refer only to the region).
I think u did well in deleting this [12], cause this is the POVish edit in my opinion: saying that even the 'unjustified' term 'Byzantine Empire' was invented by the Greeks:p. this edit is also fine [13], cause it is true and historically accepted.
about After Constantine's death, the city became known as Constantinoplein honor of its founder: u did not have to delete this... by naming a city after a person, u give him honor, is that right? i want to re-add some of the info that u deleted, but i will first wait for comments by u. Regards --Hectorian 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
I disagree - we can't possibly know that they named the city to honour him. You're right that you can honour someone by naming a city after them but we don't know that's why they did it so it's an unverifiable statement and shouldn't be there. Roydosan 08:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
there can't be another reasons for the name of the city. in fact, Constantine named the city 'Ανθούσα' ('Anthousa' = 'Spring'), the New Rome, but after his death, and cause he was made a saint (still is for all christians, if i am not wrong), the city became known as 'Constantinoupolis' to his honour. i do not know how else to explain it... it is like saying that Athens was not named after Athena to honour her... --Hectorian 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Please don't do that. I've already informed Pmanderson that I reverted his edit and why I did it. If you believe that the names you want in the article should be put in the order as it was before my revert, just do so (this doesn't mean I agree with you). Since, according to Pmanderson's edit summary that was the change I reverted DeliDumrul 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about NPOV and you support the biased version of that article. Did you read the statements I deleted? There were all uncited and totally not neutral. Mitsos 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just a suggestion: You and Greier should really seek mediation somewhere. This revert-warring will never solve whatever disputes there are. I'd offer myself for mediating, I'll just probably be too busy over the next days. But think about it. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ise veveos oti ta Tsakonika ine i moni sinhroni Doriki glossa? Simfona me to arthro Griko, ke ta katoitaliotika ehun Doriki proelefsi. --Tēlex 16:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orea - epidi ise fititis filologias, tha se pistepso :) --Tēlex 17:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, there have been two hypotheses about the Italian dialects: either a survival of ancient Doric with heavy admixture of other dialects and medieval Koine, or predominantly something going back to medieval Koine with only minor surviving elements of Doric. The question is what relative weight to assign to later medieval migrations as opposed to ancient settlements. In any case, I think it's consensus that Tsaconic is the only pure descendant of Doric. Some others have conserved a few elements, such as unshifted α instead of η in a few words, as far as I remember. Tell me if you want me to dig out some references. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Des e-mail. --Tēlex 17:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ksana des il tah molis boresis. --Tēlex 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Des ke ksana. --Tēlex 22:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian, thanks for helping to deal with Ετσιθέλωωω's stubbornness. It seems he's fast steering towards an indef ban now (see Francis' notice on WP:ANI). As you were among those who originally agreed with some of his positions, maybe you'd be the person who could try to persuade him to adopt a bit more constructive stance? If you wanted to have a word with him. My opinion is he has the choice now: either insist and get treated as a banned vandal forever, with no chance of ever again influencing Wikipedia except by disrupting and annoying all of us until we weary of it. Or get his blocks lifted in return for promising to stick to an absolute zero-reverts parole, until he has negotiated some consensus with the rest of us. I mean, it's not as if some of us wouldn't be willing to compromise, you know that. I've myself been very intransigent in dealing with him so far, just to teach him the rules, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be flexible about the content if there's proper discussion and consensus. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grazie Hectorian, sei un amico :-) (i.e. thanks, you're a friend). There's great tension here, we're all waiting the final; speriamo bene (let's hope well). We're also roasting a bit; is the climate now as terrible in Greece as it is in Italy (or at least in Tuscany)?--Aldux 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Γεια σου Hectorian. Εκτιμω τις συμβουλες σου αλλα θα πρεπει να ξεκαθαρισω οτι δεν διαγραφω τουρκικα τοπονυμια για εθνικιστικους λογους. Ο λογος ειναι πολυ πιο απλος. Τι σχεση εχει η Καλυμνος η η Σαμοθρακη η η Τηλος με την Τουρκια εκτος απο το γεγονος οτι ειχε κατακτηθει για 400 χρονια. Εχει Τουρκικο πληθυσμο? ΟΧΙ Ειναι ενα μερος με σημαντικη ιστορικη χροια στον μεσο Τουρκο? ΟΧΙ. Πρεπει να προσθεσει καποιος το ονομα μονο και μονο επειδη ειχε κατακτηθει για 400 χρονια? ΟΧΙ. Τοτε πρεπει να προσθεσουμε Τουρκικα ονοματα σε σχεδον ολες τις Ελληνικες πολεις. Τοσα μερη εχουν κατακτηθει κατα καιρους απο πολιτισμους. Θα αρχισουμε να προσθετουμε τα ονοματα?? Εκτος τον αλλων δινει και ασχημη εικονα. Ο ξενος που διαβαζει το αρθρο της Καλυμνου αναρωτιεται γιατι εχει και το Τουρκικο ονομα εκει? Υπαρχουν τουρκοι? Ποιος ο λογος? Και ειπα αν θελεις σονι και καλα να το βαλεις τουλαχιστον βαλτο μεσα στο κειμενο τοσο κακο ειναι??. Απο την αλλη μερια μερος σαν την Ξανθη θα επρεπε ισως να μπει το ονομα λογω πληθυσμου. Τωρα ας παμε στα Τουρκικα αρθρα. Σε παρακαλω μην συγκρινεις το να μπει Ελληνικο ονομα στη Σμυρνη η την Κων/πολη με το να μπει Τουρκικο στη Συμη πχ. Το Ελληνικο ΕΠΙΒΑΛΛΕΤΑΙ να μπει γιατι αυτες οι πολεις φτιαχτηκαν απο Ελληνες και ηταν ελληνικες για χιλιαδες χρονια. Παρολαυτα ολοι αυτοι που βαζουν το Τουρκικο ονομα στη Συμη στην ΠΡΩΤΗ ΓΡΑΜΜΗ δεν βλεπω να κανουν το ιδιο στην Κων/πολη μια πολλη που εγινε απο Ελληνες, ηταν ελληνικη για πολλα πολλα χρονια και εχει ελληνες. Και αυτα τα ατομα πανε και βαζουν Τουρκικο ονομα στη Καλυμνο! Που?? Στην Καλυμνο! Ελεος δηλ. Hectorian, σε εκτιμω γιαυτο σου γραφω και τοσο πολυ, ελπιζω να καταλαβεις. Regards Mywayyy.88.218.35.67 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cases are superficially similar. Amacos has not caused nearly as much trouble as Mywayyy so far. Nor has he stated his intentions of "reverting" and nor has he been avoiding blocks. In fact, Amacos has yet to be blocked for the 3RR. Perhaps if he continues to act in this way he will be indefinately banned, but I fear you are jumping the gun based on your personal view of the situation ;) Anyway, keep me updated. - FrancisTyers· 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian -- thanks for your comments. I think including Thessaloniki in the Macedonian Jews article is what ignited the flame-war, although by including it I was not saying it's Hellenic or Slavic. What I might do is include a note saying "Most analyses of the Jews of Macedonia (region) include a discussion of the Jews of Thessaloniki (Salonica). For more information on the Jews of Thessaloniki, see the "Jews of Greece" article".
Let me know what you think,
AWN:)
AWN2 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)AWN2AWN2 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Yeah, I take your point that Thessaloniki is nowhere near the Republic of Macedonia, but if someone Googles "jews"+"Macedonia" they will get alot of hits with Thessaloniki/Salonica. The redirect I have pasted says nothing about Slavs or Hellenes, it just directs them to "Jews in Greece", where I have put my "Jews of Thessaloniki" article. Cheers, AWN :) AWN2 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)AWN2AWN2 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--- Yep, point taken - happy with the revert. I have moved the Thessaloniki Jews article to "Jews in Greece". I also think Telex's disambiguation page helps. Cheers =) AWN2 08:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)AWN2AWN2 08:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isos prepei na baloume to goumoulcine pio kato sto arthro. Oti apofasieis. Oso gia ton ano tipako, kati tha exei faei, tou piraxe to stomaxi kai tora ta rixnei se emas kai stous skopianous mas filous... Politis 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Macedo- and Megleno- look quite alike, so I thought it was something like that. Don't worry, I often overlook and misread things too. You can always rely on someone else to correct you or even do it yourself, that's why it's a free encyclopedia :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is grammatically incorrect. --Tēlex 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Min kanis rv ton Greier. Perimene na fai frayi - mi spatalas rv. --Tēlex 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Des il tah. --Tēlex 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Auto sosto itan? Alithia lei ya Vlahus ke Arvanites autos? --Tēlex 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ti lei diladi? Stil' to mu me e-mail. --Tēlex 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kseris yati nomizo oti o Greier eksafanistike? O Francis to efraxe to IP ya ikositeseris ores. --Tēlex 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there! I started the article Antiochian Greeks. Are you able to provide sources and info on their presence in Greece (since I failed to do so)? Also, could you have the opportunity to take the case of "Greek-speaking Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus" into consideration, which I had presented on [15]? Perhaps, there are sources available in Greece on the issue. Ciao! --Behemoth 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for your compliments and your future efforts :-D Ciao! --Behemoth 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afto kai kane anastrofi se parakalw. Prokeite gia episimo egrafo apo tin Romeo-Katholiki Ekklisia, to opio kai exw sto prosopiko mou arxio (pio katharotero gia anagnosi)!
To sigekrimeno dokumento Epistola Enciclica, einai mia Papiki Egkiklios (EGRECIAE VIRTUTIS) kai taftochrona i anagnwrisi (tis 31-12-1980, apo ton Papa Ioanni ton B') tis Romeo-Katholikis Ekklisias, sto prosopo ton Kirilloy kai Methodiou, aderfwn, Ellinwn, ek tis perioxis Thessalonikis (Cirillo e Metodio, fratelli, greci, nativi di Tessalonica...) ... os Pateres tis Europis. --Asteraki 21:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please make edits using correct English spelling. Your use of "u" instead of "you" on Talk pages is inappropriate. CRCulver 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your grammar mistake above is more annoying than u/you. I suggest to Hector not to become a WP:DICK by following your advice...:NikoSilver: 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! what a shock! finally someone find something to accuse me of! i've never been accused for making personal attacks, uncivil manners; never been accused for stalking, neither for 3RR or for vandalism (with the exact meaning of the term), nor for copyright violation, et cetera... And now? as if i do not know that 'εσύ' in english is 'you' and not 'u'! well, this is how i learnt to write in my PC, and since i do not edit in articles like that, it's my problem... BTW, what a disgrace that their is a music band named U2... pls, somebody fix its "orthography" (ορθός + γράφω):p... --Hectorian 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ela mpampa mou na sou dei3w pou to'xei h mama! Ma8ane kai ti 8a pei or8on, kai to kanoune kai grafh kai 8rhskeia! Kai pane kai na mas dior8wsoune ki'apo panw! Sxetika me tous monaxous, kane swsta to formarisma an 8es. Onomase tous etsi opws lew sth syzhthsh (pro-teleytaio tmhma) kai bale mia phgh (o papas ftanei) katw me ton tropo pou exei kanei ta ypoloipa o antidikos.:NikoSilver: 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To'kana egw, afou den metra ws epanafora. An xreiastei na 3anakaneis epanafora, 8eloume thn teleytaia dikia mou.:NikoSilver: 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ρε όχι και τον Πάπα, σας παρακαλώ. Και ας μπορεί να έχει το αλάθητον, το εμπιστευτέον στα ιστορικά ζητήματα δεν έχει. Μωρέ, από που κι ως που είναι δουλειά του Πάπα να εκδίδει ταυτότητες εθνικές; Και σας το λέω εγώ σαν καλός Καθολικός-Κουτόφραγκος. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Βάλε όποιον θες. Όλοι ταυτότητες μοιράζουν σήμερα...:NikoSilver: 10:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come reference to the Greek alphabet was removed from the infobox of Indo-Greek Kingdom? Reference to the Kharoshti script and Brahmi script are present? Vastu 00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my previous edit in the Indo-Greek article. I thought that u had just changed the alphabetical order... anyway, i apologise and i have reverted myself in the meantime. Regards --Hectorian 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I thought you might have mistaken it for vandalism :) Regards, Vastu 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're almost done for the FA status, but there is too little time to deal with some final opjections, mainly in citation. Your help is needed, see talk! :NikoSilver: 15:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damicktalkcontribs 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hectorian! I was actually already done visitng all of the north and was in Eilat by the time the violence broke out. Feel free to email me, I'd be interested to hear about anything notable that happened here when I was gone. :D —Khoikhoi 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am confused as to your revert comment on the TRNC page. You stated that an edit to incluse a citation was not 'Official'. However the publication in question the Journal of Turkish Weekly(JTW) is an International Strategic Research Organization(http://www.isro.org.uk) publication.
I am curious as to your reasoning as on the face of things I would disagree.
Thanks for letting me expain this edit of mine. the source u provided comes from a "purely" turkish source, and thus, i could hardly expect something different from it, concerning the status of TRNC. if u provide a source from the official site of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or a source directly connected with it, be sure that i won't revert. I am not aware enough of how exactly the Islamic Conference sees TRNC, but i cannot believe that an "arab-dominated" organisation would accept the Turkish POV against the Greek one... (I am willing to accept it, though, if i have the chance to see the appropriate sources... --Hectorian 04:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply. Firstly I didnt add that citation. I have made small edits on the TRNC page but that wasnt one of them. The organization in question (ISRO) is indeed a Turkish NGO. However it is a non profit NGO and focuses on International Relations. Im not sure we can be so partisan as to claim that any and all Turkish (or Greek) sources are not valid. I appreciate that many of them wont be valid on this subject though. However you left the text in place regarding the Islamic Conference reognising the TRNC so I consider this to be a very small issue. I will see if I can source a definate non-partisan source on this issue. My username is red as I havent set up that page yet though my account is a few months old and I am still finding my feet as far as wikipedia is concerened. Oh and no Im not Portugese Im Welsh. Thanks again for the reply. Adam777 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand quite what your saying, are you saying the RoC and TRNC's position is different, even though both state their mainland language to be the official language? Also, on the issue of number of speakers, there are mainland Turks in Cyprus, but many of them have been there since 1974, and their children and grandchildren have become Cypriotised, including their use of the Cypriot dialect. There is no way of knowing how many of these speak with a Cypriot dialect, or how many maintain their mainland language.
On the issue of Cyprus history, the official GC histiography almost always starts from 1974 - check out their government website, GC's are uncomfortable with their role in the violence in the 60's, it is doubtful if they are even taught it. See http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/a_problem_en/a_problem_en?OpenDocument --A.Garnet 09:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there appears to be a bug in the software. :( Try reporting it to Tim Starling, he should be able to fix it. —Khoikhoi 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, he's actually Georgian (the county, not the state). ;) —Khoikhoi 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find that from the sister cities list? I was about to say, "what a coincidence"! —Khoikhoi 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know about Lefteris Antoniadis. (bet u had not heard about him before;)...). Even if his original name is greek, it is not even in parenthesis! ...and i know that when the turks are talking about the greek orthodox in Turkey, may have everyone but not him in mind, although he is greek orthodox (but not included in the minority!): his name 'Lefter'<-Lefteris<-Eleftherios (greek word for freedom[16] and commonly used in Greece [17], and there is also a greek saint (for both Orthodox and Catholics), who served as Pope [18]...). but what's the point? if u say that he is, some will say "no, his name comes from 'le-ft-er' or something, as they say for the name of Istanbul... In fact there are many examples of turkified Greeks: Sinan (may was Armenian), Anthopoulos Costaki, Barbarossa, Grand Viziers like İbrahim Ethem Pasha and Pargalı İbrahim Pasha, Zaganos Pasha, Valide sultans like Kösem or even Huma Hatum, Mehmet the Conqueror's mother [19]! but of course, none of them was a Janissary, a slave, a turkified by force or even a non-turk:p! the problem is that at that time 'turk' was perfectly equal to 'muslim'... some modern turks though, still believe this ottoman misconception (mixed with kemalistic unhistorical claims that the turks are aboriginals in Anatolia!). anyway, i think i got carried away;). i may create an article including all these people. afterall, the existing sources are rather valuable (but i know that such an article will be vandalised daily....). Adios --Hectorian 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I admit that I haven't. Would you be able to add his name in the Greek script to the article? Are you sure he's Greek Orthodox? That's pretty interesting man, what would the article be called? Don't worry, if it got vandalized, I just revert! :) BTW, look what I found yesterday: User talk:83.235.185.160? Sound familiar? Ciao. —Khoikhoi 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I'm not sure. Try asking FrancisTyers. BTW, can you keep an eye on the Trabzon page as well as Malatya? Thanks... —Khoikhoi 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you offered... could you check if I picked the right nominatives for the municipalities I created articles for? My sources are the statistics office (www.statistics.gr) and the department of the interior (www.ypes.gr), and they always show the genitive case of the names (dimos X-on, C-s, X-ou etc.) I usually try some possibilities in Google, and pick the most popular one, but some of them really puzzled me, like Taminaioi (dimos Taminaion). If you find errors (the easiest way is to check the municipality tables in the articles of the prefectures), please let me know. Markussep 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your corrections! I haven't quite finished yet, these prefectures are still on my to-do-list:
Yes, looks like our old friend has stopped by to pay us respects. I've already spoken with Dmcdevit (talk) and Bastique (talk) about it, both of whom are admins. Bastique says that Dmcdevit is busy, but informed someone else about it, so that's 3 people. Just give it some time, hopefully things will be sorted out. —Khoikhoi 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was solved with the anon at Talk:Hajji Bektash Wali, so there's no need to revert anymore or report him/her. :) —Khoikhoi 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at Izmir/Smyrna and related articles, and I noticed that users User:Mehter, User:Zeytin, and User:Manicotti have been making similar edits, and you mentioned in an edit summary that they might be sock puppets - exactly what I was thinking, as the edits are very similar. I don't know who they might be sock puppets of, but how can we get someone to look into that? --Awiseman 06:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do a CheckUser? --Awiseman 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pragmatika Hectorian den boro na se katalavao. Pisteua oti den eisouna kana malakismeno paidaki pou kanei edit edo mesa xoris na kserei ti paizei. Eida mexri kai auto: 15 xronos apo australia na kanei revert sto Aegean Sea kai na vazei macedonian language eno den kserei pou tou pane ta 5. Giati omos esi pigeneis kai vazeis tourkika onomata eidika sti xio pou exei to onoma sto keimeno. Prepei na to vazoume eis diploun? Entometaxi vlepeis oti genika edo mesa den kratane tis isoropies. Vgazoune ta ellinika onomata apo tourkika articles kai kanenas den kanei tipota. Emena me dioxane, kai kala, giauto to logo. Hectorian elpizo na stamatisis na to kaneis auto. pano apo ola eisai ellinas i etsi thelo na nomizo. Vlepeis pos stin Xanthi px den exo allaxei kati giati einai sosto na iparxei to tourkiko onoma ekei. Omos giati sti xio giati sti kalimno kai giati sti thasso? exei tourkous ekei? To ksereis oti den tha stamatiso na kano revert mexri na kanoun protect opos kai sta alla arthra. Kai tha perimeno mexri na ksanaginoun unprotect gia na ksanakano revert. Elpizo na min eisai to ebodio esi. Mywayyy88.218.23.227 10:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is partly correct when he says that Turkophons concentrate in Xanthi and Komotini Prefectures; this is true. But the Evros Prefecture, of which Alexandroupoli is the capital, does have a relevant minority, and the muslim citizens, turks or turkified, are estimated at about 7%; far enough IMO, certainly more than the absurdity of all those Turkish names in the lead of Aegean islands that probably, except for Rhodes and Kos, don't have a single Turkophone.--Aldux 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very busy at the moment so I made it as quickly as I could. I told Fut. Perf. to rename it if he thinks that it is necessary. You are welcome to do so, as all sides seem to wish to come to a compromise on all articles. See the talk page of Fut. Perf. Regards - FrancisTyers· 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Εφόσον υπάρχει λεγόμενη ντισπιούτ όσον αφορά τις τουρκικές ονομασίες, μήπως γνωρίζεις πώς και που ξεκίνησε? (Kala, o kosmos den kanei kana banaki?) Politis 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malista, ευχαριστώ. Το τωρινό πρόβλημα πιός το δημιούργησε? Politis 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
και πάλι μάλιστα. Πια αїπίζ (ωραίο, έτσι;), και πάμε βλέποντας. Politis
Thank you for the welcoming message, Hector. We'll discuss about these issues later as I have to leave. Just try to have a discussion with Cretanforever, he is a nice guy and am sure will listen if you are reasonable. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian. The problem is that the birth date is a controversial issue; as my biog. of Alexander by R. Lane Fox says, the ancients had three different versions regarding when Alexander was born; while all accept the year 356 BC, the versions are 1) half July, or a date close to the 20; R. Lane Fox judges this the most probable 2) da date given by one of his officers, that states he was born in October; 3) July 6, connected with the cult of Artemis. As you see, it's quite a mess ;-), and the "right" date will never, unfortunately, be known.--Aldux 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nominated for deletion. I thought you might be interested in expressing your opinion on the talk page of that article.66.233.19.170 04:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian, I reverted you on a minor issue of wording on Greco-Turkish relations, no offence intended. I think there was a misunderstanding on your part. That text really meant "delimitation", in the sense of "defining the boundaries". Can you think of a clearer way of putting that without the risk of misunderstandings? Cheers, Fut.Perf.☼ 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As for your "fact" tags, references should be in the main article Aegean dispute. That one is quite detailed. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Έχεις απόλυτο δίκιο. Αυτό που βλέπω είναι όλες οι ελληνικές ονομασίες να έχουν τα ξενικά ονόματα στην πρώτη γραμμή, και πέρα βρέχει. Αλλά η θέση μου είναι ανεξάρτητη τέτοιων ανησυχιών. Η πρέπει να αφορά όλο το ουικιπαίδια, η, άμα λάχει, στο ιστορικό τμήμα. (Ο Νικσίλβερ μάλλον θα φυσάει μπουρμπουλήθρες παρέα με κάνα χταποδάκι κάπου στο Αιγαίο, έτσι? :-) Politis 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Are you sure the population of these villages where it is practised is indigenous? This source says it was brought there by the Greeks who migrated from the interior of Strandzha, and it is certain that the Greeks in Strandzha did practise it and later moved to Greece. See this letter, it's incomprehensible to me but it might be the key :)
Also, could you please supply the name in Greek characters? Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! The villages are Kosti (Costi), Brodilovo, Gramatikovo (Grammatiko) and Marzovo (Mourtsovo) (today Kondolovo, I think), Vassiliko is a town on the coast and was renamed Tsarevo (a literal translation). They're all either in Tsarevo or in Malko Tarnovo municipality, Burgas Province. Mitsiouri may be what is called Madzhura in Bulgarian and is today in Turkey just off the border. In addition to these, there's Balgari, which is somehow regarded as the ritual's capital today.
The name's certainly common. It doesn't have a Slavic root, I believe, can you associate with anything in Greek?
By the way, my sources in Bulgarian say the rural Greek population from the interior of the mountains spoke a dialect incomprehensible to the Greeks from the towns of the coast (Ahtopol, Anchialos, Sozopol, Vassiliko, etc.) and did not have much ties with them, so they seem to be two separate groups.
Here's a photo gallery of Kosti and one of the church in Brodilovo (quite a distinctive design, the front reminds me of the Gothic architecture), if you'd like to see how a Greek village from the region looked. Here's some houses from Strandzha, both Bulgarian and Greek. Todor→Bozhinov 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The turks of Morea, especially of Tripolis (turkish Gördüş), had been massacred by greeks after the fall of city in 1821. This is a fact which is also "proudly" accepted in greek nationalist web sites. Furthermore greek hero Kolokotronis mentions in his memories that "after the 23th of September our soldiers started to kill all turks without expection of women and childern, and after the massacre was over the feet of my horse didnt touch the ground due to the turkish corpses lying on the ground"
Now.. When I edit those infos. into Wikipedia, I see that those infos. are being deleted by you. Can you tell me why? Are you ashamed of you or are just wanted to hide the truth, which is so legendary, proudly accepted by your ancestors.
Thanks,
Thanks for your comment. This gives me the chance to explain many things concerning Tripoli (or Tripolitsa, if u prefer). Fistly, the fact that greek nationalistic websites claim a massacre of the turkish population by the greek rebels, is a reason not to include it here (if we were about to include what such sites claim, Wikipedia would be much much different-in the worst way!). Kolokotronis (and Makrygiannis as well) wrote their experience from the War of Independence, in modern greek (demotiki) with much of novelistic and poetic characteristics. u can't take as absolutely true every single thing that is in his scripts. I have heard turkish people saying that "the rivers was floated with the blood of Turks" bla bla bla... Not that in am denying that Turks died in the city... Of course they did.... there was a siege, as we all know. However, the Turks (muslims, since the term was synonymous that time) were never the majority in the Peloponnese. The Peloponnese was overwhelming Greek, and according to Ottoman (not Greek) sources, the Turks numbered 20,000 souls in the beginning of the war (1821). Tripoli was a small town that time. so, if u exclude the turks living in other places of the peloponnese, those who died during the first 2 years of the revolution, those who fled the area in order to find a safer environment, what is left was merely some thousands, consisting more or less, of the guard of the ottoman officials in Tripoli. In addition, u'll have to exclude those who were saved by greek civilians (in the same way that some greeks were saved by turkish civilians in asia minor 1 century later). so, what is left? can some deaths of mostly soldiers been considered a "massacre"? And i really do not like words like "the Greeks massacred all the Turks, including children and women", "rivers of blood", "horses that could not move cause of turkish corpses"... If such sentences exist in turkish school-books, it's not my problem, but they cannot be added here! Lastly, the link u added as "see also" was red... Furthermore, u added the turkish name, which is just a curruption of the original greek, about a city that was not founded, nor ruled for the most reriod, nor the turks were in the majority... All it was, was a small turkish minority for about 3 centuries (why don't u add the greek name in the lead of Istanbul? surely the Greeks have 1,000s more reasons to have the name 'Constantinoupolis' there...). --Hectorian 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian, you are a standart greek fashist. Totally abdicted to EU, for its help, and showing ridicilous anger towards turks. I saw that you put words about greeks said by famous people on your site. You are really funny. A kid who always needs encouragement. "Hey look guys I'm big big person. Love me and hate the turks" I'm sure you are very humanistic in all cases and topics but when its about Turks or Greek Fashism (Hellenism) you are a standart member of the gang. Thank you for not hiding your real face. You can fail others but never us.
I'm sure you even dont see you army's 1919 war campaing against Turkey as a war. (The Minor Asia Catastrophe... :-)) You attack a country and when you fail to capture and massacre all the population (like in 1821-22), the defenders are barbarians. :-)) About the invasion of Izmir, you can add Hemingway's words to your site if you dare. Those s.o.b's in your army even raped babies. Hemingway was a war reporter for an american newspaper in those years. And he explained everything good and the greek army's civilization (!)
And I cant see a connection between the turkish name Gördüş and the greek one Tripolis.
You can add the name Cons. to Istanbul site. No problem for me. The city had a lot of names (turkish, greek, arabic, roman, celtic, persian, armenian etc.) and greek is only one of it. Greeks reigned Istanbul only for a short time of its history.
You mention on your personal web site that you favour human rights. Good to see that. So I thing you have a lot of things to say/write about things happening in Turkey. But please do not forget turks is western thrace and on 12 islands.
Thanks for uploading Image:Perivoli.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. :) Did you get my email that I sent today? Ciao. —Khoikhoi 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna wait until I get 100 messages. Why? Because it's so much cooler that way. :-p —Khoikhoi 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet that by the time you get to 100 messages, I'll already be at Archive 14. (this is dumb, by the way) Hehe. —Khoikhoi 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know who's right or wrong about the Macedonia thing, but it just struck me as interesting that you described what you were doing as letting the reader decide. That seems like an odd way to describe presenting something as a fact without noting that some people challenge that fact. Again, it's really possible that the notion that Macedonia was not part of Greece is so far-fetched that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned as a possibility believed in by a minority, but if so, then we're making that decision, not the reader. Nareek 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hectorian. The examples you give me all regard articles that in their titles don't bear the word "occupation". I'm sorry, but I find the word uselessly contentious; that's why period, era, rule or generally preferred; and since the article is called Ottoman Greece, I don't see why the name that is used for the title of the article can't be used for the template. If your question regards the contents (and the change of the title) of Ottoman Greece, the best guy to ask to is not me but User:Adam Carr, a professional historian who seems to be keeping an eye on the article. Ciao, Aldux 16:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gyrisa (dystyxws). Kalo xeimwna kai pes an xreiazetai tipota...:NikoSilver: 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A, kai 3exasa: Foberh h nea sou selida. Exeis bibliografia gia na thn kanoume ar8ro? :NikoSilver: 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nai, phga apo Is8mo sto Ionio: I8akh, Kalamo (Porto Leone), Kefallonia, Leykada, Antipaxous, Paxous, Kerkyra ...kai gyrisa apo katw apo thn Peloponnhso: Zakyn8o, Strofades, Me8wnh, Foinikounta, Limeni, Kardamilh, Mazapo, Gerolimena, Elafonhso, Ky8hra, Monembasia, Ba8y Aylaki, Ydra kai pisw. Dystyxws teleiwse opws ka8e xrono. Na 'tan ki'allo! :-(
Gia th selida sou, 8a elega na arxiseis siga-siga na pros8eteis tis phges pou exeis (akomh kai efhmerides) kai na doume ti mporoume na kanoume apo kei kai pera... :NikoSilver: 13:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Τι έγινε; --Telex 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Den xreiazotane to 3eka8arisma sth syzhthsh gia to lao tous. Eipa oti eipes alla me diaforetikh diatypwsh gia na fanei oudetero. Eipes 'ki eseis kamia fora' kai pros8esa oti 'ki emeis kamia fora'. Elpizw na mhn to pare3hghses ws 'adeiasma', kanonika htan to anti8eto. :NikoSilver: 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, elpizw na to parei o allos opws to phres ki esy. Akousthke poly peistiko (toso pou to pistepses ki esy) e? :NikoSilver: 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep my word. Consequently, adding the names in other languages will only augment the cities' cultural riches...
Kizzuwatna 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by to say hi and that you forgot one quote:
"How can any educated person stay away from the Greeks. I have always been far more interested in them than in science." -Albert Einstein
Anyways, since you live in Greece, or at least I think you do. How is the subject of homosexuality taught over there? Is it taught that Greece was a haven for homosexuals like it is here, or that it was more limited? I'm just curious. MegasAllexandros 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I live in California. Yes, I do speak Greek, not a dumb question. I can't type it though. Thanks for the info...I have friends who live in Greece and once I told them about what is taught here they were outraged. I was contemplating posting something on the discussion page of homosexuality in Ancient Greece but seeing how that has turned out with one user, I think I will not. Thanks again...If I ever find another good quote, I'll be sure to give it to you. MegasAllexandros 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can create subpages easially: User:Hectorian/Quotes. Yes, they can be deleted, simply by adding {{delete}} or {{db-reason}}. Hope that helped... —Khoikhoi 02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, just wait awhile, and if reverting him is the only thing to get his attention, then it might be necessary. —Khoikhoi 03:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just a small thing. The missing TCs and GCs numbers on the TRNC article. I think either both should have a citation or neither should. Whilst the number of missing GC's is now 1587 (some remains have been found since the figure of 1619 was arrived at) the missing TCs are numbered at 500-502. However when it comes to citations I dont think that citations could be provided that will be acceptable to the more partisan editors on Wikipedia. I would suggest that this article might be a way around that as it quotes UN figures for both sides of the issue however it lists the GC figure quite lower than is usually quoted. I would be interested in your thoughts that either both should have a citation or neither should?
Sorry for complaining about you in that edit summary. This has nothing to do with the content, it's just the fact that it was a major change without consensus that needs discussion. For one thing, including common languages in the table introduces a major citation issue that wasn't being met. --Golbez 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if we move the page we don't have to say "alleged" in the intro we can say, "refered to by Greeks as the Pontian Greek Genocide". I know this is a very sensitive issue, but are there any non-Greek sources that use the term genocide? I know I may sound a little bit like Justin McCarthy here, but I still think the current title is POV, and based on the fact that half the population was killed and that mostly Greeks call it a genocide, does not mean that the title should be at Pontian Greek Genocide (btw I'm not denying that it happened, I don't know enough about it to make that judgement). It's just that as A.Garnet pointed out, I could create Turkish Cypriot Genocide, a position held by many Turkish Cypriots and even backed by a British author. Would you accept that as an article? Are there any suggestions for the title you can think of besides the current one? How about Pontian Greek ethnic cleansing?
As for Japan, good for you! —Khoikhoi 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea that u removed the 'this user supports democracy' tag from your page, it is offending to everyone that someone who is so blatantly nationalistic (it's enough to take a look at your page) claims to be a supporter of democracy.. Regards... Baristarim 12:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ida ta diffs pu edixes ston Baristarim shetika me ta ti su eleye. Des ke emena ti mu ehun pi: [20][21][22][23] (prepi na xeris Vlahika ya na to katalavis auto) [24]. Yati mas lene ethnikistes, re? Ti tus ehume kani? --Telex 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
serbiana - talk 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
