hi, there is standard at WP:DATE that you should not wikilink individual years like this: 1979 e.g. on the Lucio Fulci article. full day/month/year dates are ok but not individual years. cheers. Zzzzz 10:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I found you through Babel. I'm trying to clean up the article John 18:38 aka Jesting Pilate. I was wondering if you might be able to supply me with a Wiki-friendly Ancient Greek version of the verse, or possibly just insert it into the article. It would be much appreciated. Thanks! - CheNuevara 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! :) - CheNuevara 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Elytis.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Elytis.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Why are you against reporting on what was said about Sophocles? Haiduc 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's petty. Cheap. It's like having a whole paragraph about the color of his eyes or about his favorite drink. Sshadow 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The way we have it, Aromanian is basically "a kind of Vlach" (as the article for Vlachs indicates). Why be vague? Plus: using your logic, nothing should ever be linked to "Aromanians". Plus: one of the sources specifically indicates that he was Aromanian; the other sources don't do so only because they do not provide the same level of detail (the name of his family, for example). Dahn 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S, as you may see, the current Vlach article sends to "Aromanian", as a subcategory; you may also note that the general agreement also views Romanians as a kind of Vlachs ("Vlach" was the common appelation for Romanians in the modern age). I myself cannot decide on the merger, and would be deeply opposed to it. However, if you want to state the case for it, by all means do so - on the respective pages. Until a decision iss taken, let's not experiment with terminologies in related articles. Dahn 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S, you would be obstructing a valid article that you object to for your own reasons, and still be linking to the vaguer of two articles. I don't know what is "middle" about this way. Dahn 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease further reverts in this article! If u are not convinced about Rigas being an Aromanian, i can supply u with many sources, even in Greek if u prefer... Ο Ρήγας ήταν Βλάχος, και μιας και είμαι κι εγώ (και τυχαίνει να έχω καταγωγή ίδια με την δική του (ίδιο χωριό) δεν μπορώ να καταλάβω τον λόγο της αντίδρασής σου...). Δεν συζητάμνε την καταγωγή των Βλάχων, η οποία είναι 100% ελληνική ΙΜΧΟ... Σκέψου πριν ξανακάνεις revert... Hectorian 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Sshadow. There is a Greek perspective on the Aromanian issue: if you'd bother to actually look into it, you'll see that it does not deny the existence of Aromanians, but rather their status as a Latin people or a branch of the Romanians; the usual Romanian perspective. Generally, I tend to disagree with the very fabric of such arguments, as well as with any other ethno-nationalist perspective on this and other issues,; if I have to pick, I tend to oppose the standard Greek viewpoint, as it seems more politically-motivated than it is rational. However, I took no particular stand on the issue, nor prevented any version from being voiced. This means that no POV can be expressed on the issue of someone being Aromanian, but rather on the issue of being Aromanian means. Thus, your outburst is sterile and irrelevant. This especially since you yourself note that Aromanians are a kind of Vlachs (as the Vlachs inhabit regions from the Pindus to Bohemia); it is also useful to point out that no other kinds of Vlachs compete over Feraios (unless you want to say that he was a Morlach or a Romanian).
On the absolutely incomprehensible argument you made about Djuvara: 1. I hoped I would not be around to see the day when a professional and reputable historian becomes "biased" for, let us note, no other reason than "being Romanian"; I also believe that the issue of whether "I am familiar with nationalism" (whatever that assumption was meant to "incriminate") is abhorrent when standing next to that statement of collective guilt extended to Djuvara; 2. Djuvara is noted, among others, for having exposed nationalist tenets present in Romanian historiography (frankly, I believe few such undertakings were present in Greek culture, but that is another matter); 3. even if Djuvara would, under some dubious-to-say-the-least criterion, be "biased", that would be of no relevancy to an article where the issue of Feraios' origin is not contested by sources, but unfamiliar to you (as I have indicated above, and as Hectorian wrote ahead of me); 4. let me note that, if the debate is among Greeks and Romanians, you erased both Djuvara and the Britannica references, yet kept the Greek sources - perhaps based on the assumption that "they cannot be wrong".
Now, I cannot make this any more clear to you. Feel free to reply if these points are clear to you and you want to cover other issues - I will not be replying to arguments that ignore the points made here. Dahn 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't realy matter... I do know that the term 'vlach' or more appropriate 'βλάχος' is used for the aromanians in greece, but in the english world, 'vlach' does not mean exclusively 'aromanian'... That's why i oppose any reference in the 'Rigas' article mentioning him as vlach in general... There is no dispute that Rigas was an aromanian... as there is also no dispute that he was a Greek... Ο Ρήγας ήταν ο πρώτος της γενιάς του εικοσιένα. πάλεψε και έχασε τη ζωή του για την ελευθερία των Ελλήνων. Αυτό λέει πολλά, όσον αφορά το γεγονός ότι οι Βλάχοι είναι και νιώθουν Έλληνες... Αυτό το άρθρο το προσέχω... Συνεπώς, όποιο ποβ προστεθεί ισχυριζόμενο το αντίθετο θα αναστραφεί από εμενά, τουλάχιστον... Hectorian 01:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hectorian, much of that is what I was telling Sshadow: the issue had no possible logical connection with the dispute between POVs, and calling Feraios "Aromanian" did not harm the usual Greek POV in any way (nor advanced the standard Romanian POV). For some reason, S began charging me and Djuvara of "having a POV", even though this (if at all probable) had no connection with anything in the article. Just in case, I thought I'd let him know why he is wrong about "my POV" (even though I reject the standard Greek assessments for being politically-motivated, I have the same attitude towards the standard Romanian views, and for the same reason). Also just in case, I thought I'd let him know why it is not constructive to start waving around accusations of "having a POV" just for belonging to a certain nationality (a non sequitur in any civilized society), and why he should consider the paradox of this particular a priori charge of nationalism in connection with the nationalist philosophy that is motivating the charge itself! That is all. Dahn 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . Do not call returning an article to the consensus version "vandalism". CRCulver 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please stop with the attacks or I'll have to request a NPA block. CRCulver 14:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Σε παρακαλώ πρόσεχε τον τρόπο που εκφράζεσαι, γιατί η γουίκι είναι πολύ αυστηρή στο θέμα και θα φας μπλοκ τσάμπα και βερεσέ. Ψάξε λίγο το ιστορικό μου και τη σελίδα μου για να καταλάβεις τι είμαι. Σου ζητώ να ζητήσεις συγγνώμη όσο είναι καιρός. Επίσης, δεν κάταλαβα, τί σε πειράζουν τα ξένα ονόματα? Τι σχέση έχουν όλα αυτά που λες με το αν θα έπρεπε να τα βάλουμε για να υπάρχει πλήρης πληροφόρηση? Δεν είναι πιθανό ένας Τούρκος να ψάξει να βρεί την πόλη μας για πληροφορίες? Γιατί λοιπόν να μην αναφέρει τα ονόματα πιο κάτω, αφού έτσι είναι και η πολιτική της γουίκι? Δες Izmir, Bitola, Istanbul κλπ για τα δικά μας... •NikoSilver• 15:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough; I've blocked you for 31h for disruption. Sshadow, you must understand that this sort of incivility can't be tolerated, and you seem to have already in the past made use of ethnic slurs; and your personal attacks don't make things better for you. So please, during this pause, read carefully WP:CIV and WP:NPA.--Aldux 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand, do you? You can't edit while you're blocked, especially not with the goal to make new personal attacks. For this I have lengthened your block to 72 hours.--Aldux 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Να προσέχω τον τρόπο που εκφράζομαι ε; Αυτό το ύφος του αφέντη που το ψώνισες ρε; Εκεί που ψώνισες και τη φανταχτερή υπογραφή σου; Πως μπορείς να λες στους συνανθρώπους σου (στους υποτιθέμενους συνεργάτες σου) να προσέχουν πως εκφράζονται; Και δη στους υποτιθέμενους συμπατριώτες σου. Η αμερικάνικη ψευτιά σε κατέκλυσε από παντού, καψερέ πλαστοκόμη. Έρχεσαι και μου τσαμπουνάς περί ανέμων και υδάτων και περί των δικαιωμάτων των κατακτητών μέσα στα πεδία των σφαγών τους. Βρε ριψάσπυ αν είναι όταν πάω να γράψω για τ' αυτονόητα να κοπανάω σ' ενα αμερικανάκι-ανδράποδο-λογοκριτή σαν τα μούτρα σου: στ' αρχίδια μου ρε, θα σ' αφήσω να γράφεις για μπακλαβάδες, κανταϊφια, σουβλάκια και τσολιάδες. Σσάδοου ή 85.75.89.202 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
λέω:
Χα! Ίσως είσαι ο πρώτος εδώ μέσα που με είπε ...φιλοαμερικάνο! Δεν σου είπα να προσέχεις πως εκφράζεσαι γιατί είμαι ευαίσθητος στα πουστιρλίκια, για την ακρίβεια μάλλον είμαι πιο σταρχιδιστής από σένα. Σου το είπα για να σε προστατέψω και να μην φας μπλόκ. Λυπάμαι που δεν με άκουσες. Κι ας μ'έβρισες, εγώ εξακολουθώ να θέλω να σε βοηθήσω: Εδώ, θες δε θες, υπάρχουν 2 τρόποι για να επηρεάσεις και να αλλάξεις το περιεχόμενο κατά το δοκούν: (α) τηρείς κανόνες και γίνεσαι αρεστός και προσπαθείς να αλλάξεις και τους κανόνες και τη γνώμη των άλλων, ή (β) τρελλαίνεσαι και τα βάζεις με το 'σύστημα' και τρώς μπλόκ εσαεί και γίνεσαι και γραφικός. Εγώ, μπορώ να κάνω το πρώτο, όσο τρελλαμένος και νά'μαι, και όσο κι αν διαφωνώ κάπου. Μακάρι να'τανε το πρόβλημά μας τα ονοματάκια στη Σαλονίκη εδώ μέσα! Εδώ ο κόσμος χάνεται και εμείς αλληλοκατηγορούμαστε για προδοσία! Δες λίγο στις συνεισφορές μου τα άρθρα με τα οποία καταπιάνομαι, και μετά μιλάμε για ονοματάκια. Αν θες να βοηθήσεις πραγματικά, προσπάθησε να προσαρμοστείς. Αλλιώς άλλαξε site γιατί μας κάνεις ζημιά. •NikoSilver• 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! How are you? I have noticed that you say in your user page that you speak Ancient Greek and I was wondering whether you could possibly help us revive the Ancient Greek Wikipedia at the Incubator. It would be great if you could lend us a helping hand. Jon Gua (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am sorry to bother you again but I was wondering whether you could possibly sign this (https://shorturl.at/hNQVY) petition in order to get the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek approved. Thank you so much for your help. Jon Gua (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
