Talk:Doxato
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Just to make you happy[edit]
Not seeing why this passage is obviously POV and unencyclopaedic speaks volumes about the intentions of the one who adds it repeatedly. The text is one-sided, unsourced, poorly written among other things. It represents only the view of ... hmmm, I don't know who, but it's on the Greek side obviously. The words used are weasel and inappropriate for a text of any academic value. Any more questions?--Laveol T 12:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Weasel", "inappropriate", "one-sided". All these are empty words if you don't be more specific. Why and where is the text weasel. What you mean inappropriate. One sided? Put your side to do it double sided. As for the unsourced, at least read Cassavetti. Is in the references section. A town's massacre almost entirely against women and children is by definition a massacre. What view you propose us to give? What do you want me to do about? While you know nothing about it (as you admitted), the same time you insist to declare it POV. If this isn't another "I don't like it" edit, what is it then? --Factuarius (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's the whole paragraph. It's so poorly POVishly written. Do you need me to provide you with all the words that make for a ultranationalistic paragraph? Extermination, total destruction, the Greek-Macedonian town, Doxato twice faced mass massacres during Bulgarian occupations, when Bulgaria unsuccessfully attacked Serbia and Greece (officially its allies against Turkey), Bulgarian soldiers possibly on retreat trying to loot the town, Having ripped everything that were valuable, they massacred 650 inhabitants and they totally burnt it to the ground. Need more? The paragraph makes no sense and it lacks logic. So they massacred the population ones and yet just 28 years form then they had enough population to massacre it again. I know nationalists tend to look on the other side as villains, but this is in fact ridiculous. The paragraph is beyond hopeless, that's why I had it removed after some consideration. I've seen you edit-war on similiar topics in the past and the fact that you didn't succeed in introducing this in other articles, doesn't mean you should promote it here as well. Thank you. Oh, and the next time you call valid edits vandalism, you're giong to WP:ANI. --Laveol T 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- All the expressions used are from the original sources as with the Bulgarization article. READ. Yes it had population after 28 yers and still has today. Even Dresden, Hirosima and Nagasaki have populations today although their destructions in 1945. So what? Come to the subject and stop declaring every article which is not enough pro-Bulgarian as POV just because you don't like it. A town's massacre, against women and children is by definition a crime.--Factuarius (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, you did not answer any of the questions asked above. Are all these words appropriate for an encyclopaedia? Especially a one whose aim is not to be an ultranationalist pamphlet? It's not ok to have such serious allegations sourced with one single source and written in such a poor way. Nationalism is not the answer to every question, you know. --Laveol T 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- All the expressions used are from the original sources as with the Bulgarization article. READ. Yes it had population after 28 yers and still has today. Even Dresden, Hirosima and Nagasaki have populations today although their destructions in 1945. So what? Come to the subject and stop declaring every article which is not enough pro-Bulgarian as POV just because you don't like it. A town's massacre, against women and children is by definition a crime.--Factuarius (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's the whole paragraph. It's so poorly POVishly written. Do you need me to provide you with all the words that make for a ultranationalistic paragraph? Extermination, total destruction, the Greek-Macedonian town, Doxato twice faced mass massacres during Bulgarian occupations, when Bulgaria unsuccessfully attacked Serbia and Greece (officially its allies against Turkey), Bulgarian soldiers possibly on retreat trying to loot the town, Having ripped everything that were valuable, they massacred 650 inhabitants and they totally burnt it to the ground. Need more? The paragraph makes no sense and it lacks logic. So they massacred the population ones and yet just 28 years form then they had enough population to massacre it again. I know nationalists tend to look on the other side as villains, but this is in fact ridiculous. The paragraph is beyond hopeless, that's why I had it removed after some consideration. I've seen you edit-war on similiar topics in the past and the fact that you didn't succeed in introducing this in other articles, doesn't mean you should promote it here as well. Thank you. Oh, and the next time you call valid edits vandalism, you're giong to WP:ANI. --Laveol T 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A town's massacre, against women and children is by definition a crime of ultranationalism. Being apologizer of such actions a century latter makes you also ultranationalist. Which is not surprise given your previous activity around. --Factuarius (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Will you cut down on the personal attacks? Comment on the text, not the editor, will you? I'm quite fed up with guys resolving to personal attacks when they don't like something. --Laveol T 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- You accusing me in writing for a ultranationalist pamphlet and when I return your accusations you starting the cries for personal attacks, calling me to discuss while in the same time you just reverting. Nice. Anyway if you want to discuss it I am here. But what to discuss? You just wrote in the edit log that that was the closest thing you can accept without saying a word on why you will not accept anything more. --Factuarius (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, I said it was the closest thing to a compromise. You're getting to personal when you start putting words in my mouth. And just to clarify things: It does look like an ultranationalist pamphlet. The only thing I said about you is that you have introduced the same paragraph in several other articles. --Laveol T 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Especially a one whose aim is not to be an ultranationalist pamphlet?" When someone is spit against me I don't pretend that is raining. --Factuarius (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, seriously, stop. Now. Read the previous sentence now. What did it say? What was I writing about. Was it about you? Or was it actually about the article??? Enough with lame jokes and word-plays already.
- And just to make you even happier, I'll refrain from making other edits to the article until this is resolved and I'm allowed to edit without such obstructions again. --Laveol T 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Especially a one whose aim is not to be an ultranationalist pamphlet?" When someone is spit against me I don't pretend that is raining. --Factuarius (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, I said it was the closest thing to a compromise. You're getting to personal when you start putting words in my mouth. And just to clarify things: It does look like an ultranationalist pamphlet. The only thing I said about you is that you have introduced the same paragraph in several other articles. --Laveol T 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- You accusing me in writing for a ultranationalist pamphlet and when I return your accusations you starting the cries for personal attacks, calling me to discuss while in the same time you just reverting. Nice. Anyway if you want to discuss it I am here. But what to discuss? You just wrote in the edit log that that was the closest thing you can accept without saying a word on why you will not accept anything more. --Factuarius (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"Was not about me? It was actually about the article"? But what you discussed was what I wrote in the article. What you are talking? I can understand english. Anyway I will do the same but stop taking me for an idiot, only for the rest of the discussion. --Factuarius (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Look, I'm quite aware of what I say and I'm sure I have not called you anything. And I don't think I deserved the bashing on the Bulgarisation article. Have a nice sleep now and see you tomorrow when I hope we could start the discussion afresh and get to some consensus eventually. --Laveol T 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe you understand very well what I told you, but I don't want also to continue on that. Now, lets focus to the article: this discussion has no meaning. Find a way to explain on what you objecting. Believe it or not I couldn't understand it. But read before the refs, both books are currently on line. You can read the entire chapters. If you cannot, ask me and I will give you the links or I will sent you the texts. --Factuarius (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doxato. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr:80/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)