Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Az1568 (talk | contribs) at 06:21, 7 December 2006 (Reverted edits by 85.75.138.39 (talk) to last version by OttomanReference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Geia

LOL gi' afto. kane kati me to email sou... synexws mou leei oti den mporw na steilw... btw, everytime i look your user page a get more and more afraid:p Hectorian 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue I - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, welcome to the program! I didn't have the chance to welcome you earlier.--Yannismarou 07:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes

I've commented in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject History of Greece#Phanariotes and in Talk:Phanariotes. I hope we can co-exist with these people, but ςε'll see. I hope I had the time to start a thorough rewriting myself of this article, but, at this very time, I'm working on three other articles: Demosthenes, Alcibiades, El Greco. I see what I'll be able to do. Once again thanks for your participation in the project and your valuable remarks for this article. Τα λέμε!--Yannismarou 18:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I have many rephrasings to make. I cannot possibly tell if in your system they form part of the content or part of the format. Hopefully, you will see why a statement like "Yet Islamic pride had up to that point regarded Western languages and cultures unworthy of attentions" doesn not quite qualify as a neutral, or even modern, additon. Dahn 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine with the theory and all. I have asked you what you disagreed with in my edits. You did not tell me.but instead claimed all sorts of things about them. For example, in the section about supposed Islamic arrogance, I had rephrased to make the same point about relations between the Phanariotes and the Ottomans, but dodge the subjectivity. You reverted. So what if it is Britannica? One more reason to rephrase: it's copyvio. Or do you mean "the 1911 Britannica"? Because, in that case, I think there are thousands of reasons to rephrase: the same ones we use for all books written in the goddamn Edwardian age! Now, kindly read the original earlier version of mine in its entirety, and tell me what you disagreed with and why (I cannot for the love of me see what "twisted the meaning around"; I can, however, see where I have dropped the weasel words without hurting the content). Make me trust you when you claim you have a neutral stance. Dahn 01:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you have misplaced one edit, I suggest that what you do is begin by copying a section of my contributions in its entirety, rephrase what you dislike, and save. I figure it is less demanding and does not involve me trying to fit sections back in their original place. I thank you in advance. Dahn 02:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also: the section currently titled "Establishment of Phanariotes as a ruling class" needs a change in header, to perhaps "Phanariotes as a ruling class". As I am looking at it, in my edits or yours, it deals with much more than the establishment. It will also hopefully expand to cover their end, sice the section about the end now actually covers just Romania (either make it one section for the two countries at the end of the article, or make mention of those events in relation to Greece somewhere in or after the current "Establishment of Phanariotes as a ruling class"). Now, the other suggestion: I would avoid using "class" in the title. It is a Marxist concept in most references, so its use is risky; let me also note that the text currently provides two Greek views on the Phanariotes - one of the historians you cite says that they were primiordially Greek representatives, the other that they were mostly a class. Consider now that keeping the title would unwittingly favour the latter view. In all, I think "Phanariotes as high officials" or something of this meaning (your call what it should be) is a good rephrasing. Dahn 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm glad we managed to reach a mutually acceptable solution, we could remove the tags now. I should retire for now, I'll expand the second section at a later stage. Regards. Miskin 02:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some other things which need rephrasing, all of them, I would say, having to do with style. I propose you let me go through them edit by edit, allow me to explain the reasons for them in edit summaries, and see if you agree with them, and propose how I should rephrase something you disagree with (in case you do). Dahn 02:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask: did you mean to remove the link for "Helladic provinces" to Ottoman Greece? Was it factually wrong or was it just an accident? Dahn 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. One other thing puzzling me involves references. For Paparrigopoulos, you have added an "Eb" in one reference. If this meant to be the volume, why is "Ab" given in the references? What does the mention in parantheses after his name indicate: a co-author? a pseudonym? the editor? About Hobsbawm: I want to make mention of him in notes as just Hobsbawm, and move indication of the book and chapter to "References" (as I have done for all other books). Do you object? Because I want to use a single format for references (no matter what that may be, but I'd rather use the one already present). Dahn 02:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Italians and French

I feel obliged to tell you that Italy is not culturally and anthropologically as homogeneous as France. Besides the usual stereotype there is much more in a country which draw its roots from the most diverse kinds of civilizations. While Greece was ruling over Southern Italy, the whole North was dominated by Celts. Whilst Normans were in Sicily, Lombards invaded northern Italy. Today, the dialects spoken in the North are closer to French than to the Standard Italian, and regions like Piedmont and Lombardy are all but "purely mediterrean" (in fact, they don't have neither a mediterrean climate). Belive it or not, in average people from Turin look much more alike people from Strasbourg than people from Messina: this is not a merit for one or the other, it's just a fact. Try to go there and report. But, yes, when all is said and done, who cares. And about French... they are culturally so far from us that in Italy we call them "our cousins". They don't deserve it, I know. --Fertuno 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Phanariote

Τα έχω πάρει στο κρανίο μ'αυτό τον τύπο. Είδα ότι επιμένει να αφαιρεί το link για την Κωνσταντινούπολη, ενώ συνεχώς του λέω ότι στο σχετικό άρθρο αναφέρεται ότι η πόλη κράτησε ως επίσημο το όνομα αυτό έως το 1930 (βλ. Constantinople), οπότε το link είναι τουλάχιστον χρήσιμο, για να μην πω απαραίτητο. Το επανέφερα και είμαι διατεθειμένος να το τραβήξω μέχρι τέλος, για να πάρει ένα μάθημα επιτέλους! Δεν είναι συμπεριφορά συνεργάσιμου Wikipedian αυτή! Κάνει τέτοια σαματά για ένα link! Eίναι σοβαρός;! Δε θέλω να είμαι εθνικιστής, αλλά για χάρη του θα γίνω! Θέλω να προσέχεις και εσύ το άρθρο και να επέμβεις, όταν αρχίσει το μπουγιουρντί! Ίσως αν επέμβουμε όλοι μαζί να μαζευτεί λίγο!

Έχω στείλει σχετικό μήνυμα και στο Nicosilver, που ανέφερε το Dahn, για παραβίαση του 3R rule.--Yannismarou 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Miskin, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Dear Miskin,

regarding your edit I would like you to point out that I, as the mediator in this case I will not tollerate such sarcasm remarks and I would like to ask you to be more polite and more civil,

best regards,Wissahickon Creek 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: although I did characterize that comment as "rude and borderline homophobic", I didn't actually ask W.C. to do anything about it. I was using your comment as an example to show him that his clumsy attempt at mediation was actually provoking users to harden their positions, instead of coming together to form a consensus. I agree with Akhilleus' restoration of your comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

You are receiving this notice because you have recently commented on Talk:Alexander the Great. You may be interested in the mediation case located here. It is my hope that mediation will help solve the debate, but you are welcome to participate or not participate as you choose. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Source of an old upload

Hello,

Could you have a look at this discussion on Commons. It deals with an image you first uploaded on the English Misplaced Pages, and that I later transfer into Commons. The real source of the image is now not clear at all: did you take the photography yourself? or did you copy it from this page (or a similar one)?

Thanks for your answer. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet, a simple point

Unless I'm mistaken, "-oi" stands for plural. I.e.: "The Johnsons family". You either say "the Johnson family" or "the Johnsons". Dahn 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you like posting misleading summary edits, Miskin? Ah, never mind - I don't really want to know. Dahn 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, I would not write down complicated summaries if the edits I'm replying to would make sense - the more elementary the mistake, the more complicated the reply. Not to mention that I seem to be have been placed on parole by the entirety of the Greek users' cabal (I would have wanted to avoid the usual stream of IPs who, without getting the point of simple and natural edits, revert with childish and inflammatory comments on the side). I wouldn't have asked about the misleading summaries if this wasn't the third of fourth time I've seen you do it. It ids still mysterious to me why "Mavrocordatos family" needed to be cosmetized to "Mavrocordotos", but whatever keeps you happy. Dahn 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1.Because I don't contribute to wikipedia merely to clean up after you when you should know better than to add stuff like that. 2.Because most the added fragment does not have any relevancy either way, and the rest is redundant. Dahn 13:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp 09:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Malakies

Sorry about that edit, I just couldn't resist getting the Aristotle joke in with my edit summary. ;-) The edit itself is pretty meaningless. If I remember right, there is some uncertainty about the ultimate etymological identity of the two words. Not that it really matters for the malakies at hand... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Μοναστήρι

How come Bitola doesn't have the Greek and Turkish names of the city in the head? Is it some sort of exception? Miskin 12:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

'Cause it got a name section. Khoikhoi 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So how about adding a name section in Thessaloniki, Crete, Chios, Rhodes... and the literally countless of Greek articles which mention Turkish names right in the head? Unless of course, Bitola is some kind of exception to the rule, now is it? Miskin 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but when there are a great deal of alt. names, it makes the intro look crowded. In Crete, it would be pointless to create a new section for something so short anyways. Khoikhoi 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How will two alternatives names (Greek and Turkish) make it crowded? Have you checked what's happening in Thessaloniki? I'm not falling for such an excuse. Aldux reverted me claiming "duplication of info", but in Thessaloniki too the Turkish name is well mentioned in the damn body of the article, yet no-one claimed a "duplication of information". I'm going to add those names back, and if other editors insist on removing them then I'll start removing foreign names from the heads of Greek articles too. I'm getting the impression that some certain ethnic groups get special treatement because people feel sorry for them or because they just bitch too much. I don't really care to examine the reasons, but it's a clear double-standard policy which I'm not going to tolerate. All I'm asking for is justice. Miskin 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't you whine a little bit more and maybe you'll get your way. Khoikhoi 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

With such helpful attitude you'll make me regret supporting your adminship much sooner than expected. Miskin 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Khoikhoi 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

;-)

You mean common Greek terminology, which most Greeks think it's English terminology. ;-)) It is really hillarious to say it's anachronistic, when you think that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and not separate ethnic group. I don't see any anachronism here. So, the question is now, do you think that Ancient Macedonians were a separate ethnic group or part of the Greeks (Ellines)? Bomac 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Like, you mean ancient Macedonians were assimilated? ;-) Bomac 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, review WP:NOFEEDING. Bomac, they may (assuming they were not already Greek in the first place) have been assimilated.--Tekleni 16:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Decius

I don't know, Miskin. This is just one of Tony S's trigger-happy blocks of an account he considered disruptive. I am sure Decius-Alexander can just create another account if he feels like it. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vita

You misunderstand. The Vita is the Slavonic-language biography of St Cyril. Byzantine Emperor Michael III calls the inhabitants of Thessaloniki "solunEnE" (where E represents yat) because, well, the document is written in Slavonic and that's the Slavonic name of the city in the oldest sources. As far as I know there is no Greek original. I never claimed that Michael III called the city by the Slavonic name in his original, unrecorded Greek-language speech, but rather was trying to show that the form "SolunU" for the city is the standard Common Slavonic form. If you want the exact citation from the Vita, it's on the first page or so of the latest edition of Lunt's Old Church Slavonic (The Hague: Walter de Gruyter, 2001). That's where I first encountered the line солѹнѣне вьси чисто словѣньскъi бесѣдѹѭтъ. I'm not relying on anything from the Web, and don't know why you thought so. CRCulver 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Thessaloniki is historically important enough in the Slavic world to merit the name there, especially considering what Michael III says of it. Better to represent everyone than to leave someone out. 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I've already referred you to the Vita, you cannot say that every source you've read on Thessaloniki says the Slavs were insignificant. Even if you feel the Vita is not sufficient evidence in this regard, it still exists. CRCulver 18:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that the Slavs were somehow significant when a Byzantine emperor says that all Thessalonians speak perfect Slavonic isn't some private interpretation, it's the plain meaning of the text. I never said that they formed any numerically significant population, but bilingualism means notable cultural influence. CRCulver 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I did not say that there was a numerically significant Slavonic population in Thessaloniki, all I said it that there was significant cultural influence, just as there would be by English-speakers on the Oslo residents of your example. And this reading of the text can be found in various major English-language handbooks of OCS. It's in Lunt, as I cited above, and Nandris as well IIRC. Also, the hagiography of St Cyril maintained by various Slavic national Orthodox churches ascribes a significant Slavic population to the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, but I'll need to stop by the library to formally cite this. CRCulver 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Italian people

I think you are right. We can remove it completely. --Fertuno 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek and Turkish names

Miskin, I am sick of this childish bickering about Greek/Turkish/Slavic/etc. names of Greek/Turkish/Macedonian/etc. places. I have consistently been an 'inclusionist' in this area -- mention all the historically and culturally relevant names in all the articles. When relevant, I have added Greek names to cities in Asia Minor, Turkish and Slavic names to cities in Greece, and Greek and Turkish names to cities in the Republic of Macedonia (and no, I will not play silly political games by calling it FYROM). Now we are at a new level of silly bickering -- whether the name belongs in the head of the article or in the body. I thought a consensus had been reached that if there is a discussion in the body, then the head would only mention the current official name and the common current English name if that is different (e.g. Wien/Vienna, Tenedos/Bozcaada, etc.). Reasonable enough. So let's stop the revert wars. I will not participate in them. --Macrakis 15:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Diafora

Prospatho na min eimai idiaitera epikritikos se kapoious users, pistevontas apla oti den einai upoxrewmenoi na gnwrizoun ta panta, anaforika me tin istoria tou topou kai ta istoriko-thriskeutiko-ethnika dikaiwmata tis perioxis. tha xanaprosthesw to elliniko onoma sto Monastiri, kai an xanaafairethei, tha vgalw to 'Slavic' apo tin Thessaloniki, metonomazontas to apla se 'Bulgarian'. Oi Boulgaroi users den fainontai na enoxlountai apo to elliniko sto Plovdiv... Sunepws, no prob for me either! Oso gia ta Giannena, Corintho, ktl, as mou deixoun prwta 'notability' gia na to exoume, kai meta ta xanaleme... Regards Hectorian 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes

I was asked a little while ago if I would intervene as an outside party to help resolve the dispute about the lead of this article. After a bit of a delay, I've made some proposals on the talk page; could you take a look at them and see what you think? Thanks, --Robth 05:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sparta

De nada! Khoikhoi 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue III - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Well, next time don't jump the gun on flaimbaits, as I had stated on my posts :))) I had read your post before you put it in my talk page, so don't worry.. Please don't use expressions like "imperfect education", I know that since we can only put our thoughts into writing, some stuff can be lost in communication, but you should try to read between the lines sometimes. And, also don't worry about my grasp of the fundamental notions of any nation: half the speeches and notions used during the nation-state processes of nearly every country are demagogic or half-correct at best. That's the irony :)) That's normal though, how the hell were people going to create "national identities" out of the thin air out of thousands of years of religious-based identification? In any case, it was one off-the-topic banter between me and Hectorian, so don't take it too seriously :)) Of course I realize to what point the Ottoman state built itself from the remnants of other Empires that it conquered, particularly when they made one of their capitals their own capital. How do you think they were going to build a state otherwise?? Bring in aliens to run the country?? :)) They also adopted other elements from Persian and Islamic culture because of religion. But you see, that's the point, history is always interconnected, there are no "revolutions", it goes for every country and region. What does it mean to be "Turk" or "Greek" or "Italian" etc at the end of the day? It is just a choice, some people take that choice too far sometimes.. Cheers! Baristarim 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Games can be fun :)) Bon weekend! Baristarim 07:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sujeto

Look dude, just read the sign:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Khoikhoi 01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Jewish. Khoikhoi 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation board launched

A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if it were so, then so be it. It was only that I cannot help be a little suspicious of some spill-over debates that affect smaller articles.. As for the grammar issue, u r right i suppose, i couldn't make out the grammar consistency with all those brackets and apostrophes and all in the code.. I have to go now, but I will look into it later. Baristarim 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine identity

Hello, Miskin. I'd prefer to keep communications on the English WP in English, so that no editor feels excluded. If I'm tempted to write something that most other editors can't understand, it probably doesn't belong in a WP discussion. Anyway, your note had nothing like that in it.

Why did I write my comment on Talk:Byzantine Empire welcoming Javits? Well, um, to welcome him. He is a newish editor with a strong background in not only Byzantine issues but also art history, and I want to make sure he continues to contribute. Several editors (including you) have been overly confrontational and agressive with his earnest efforts to contribute high-quality content, and I want him to know that his work are appreciated. I also want to make sure that we all agree that good, solid, modern sources should underlie our contributions. Just as we shouldn't be using the 1911 Britannica or the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia without careful re-editing (see my comments on Template talk:Catholic, for example), we certainly shouldn't be taking Paparrigopoulos or Toynbee (or Fallmerayer!) as representing current thinking, or for that matter the ethnocentric school textbooks that are still being used in Greece (cf. Hamilakis).

I know that you want to ensure that Greek perspectives are not slighted, and that Greek civilization is not belittled. That is a good thing. On the other hand, it is not a good thing to exclude other reputable and well-sourced perspectives, or to interpret sources tendentiously. And I certainly don't think it is a good idea to aggressively attack and ridicule people who have different serious perspectives. I hope that you, Javits, and everyone else will be able to work on many articles constructively and productively rather than haggle interminably. --Macrakis 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I never asked you why you welcomed whomever you welcomed, I asked you why do you constantly try to belittle my contributions. Forget about it. Miskin 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mporeis na elegkseis to diko sou. Hectorian 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine vs Eastern Roman empire

Heya, as to the comments on my talk page: "because they weren't spoken by the people we call 'Byzantines', but by people who were frequently their subjects and frequently their enemies" - that's the whole point of difference, I fear. The Byzantine Empire rules over Byzantine people, and a subject of the Emperor is a Byzantine. It can be safely assumed that those "Byzantines" mostly spoke Greek at least as a second language, but it's not necessary. The same applies to the Romans during the Empire: every citizen of the Empire can be called a "Roman", modified only when his backgound is important. Your sentence "a medieval civilisation with no identity which suddenly disappeared after the sack of Constantinople" - that's what I meant with "conjuring up strawmen" and "exaggerations" on the BE talk. No one ever suggested that. It is frustrating to see - imho very reasonable - compromises neglected by refuting something which was never claimed. As to the distinction between Eastern Roman and Medieval Byzantine Empire: yeah, maybe; see also my comment on the BE talk; it makes sense. However, I also want to avoid that we now cut the medieval empire from its predecessor - it developed from the late antique one, it didn't simply come into existence. Regards, Varana 17:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

French vs. Italian people

Hi, I saw by chance your interesting comment at Fertuno's page: I don't really care about your dispute but I feel obliged to tell you that Italians have very few similarities to the French culturally and physically, the only link is the linguistic element. The French in average look a lot more like the Germans, and the Italians are purely a mediterranean people since ancient times. Plus the French bean the Italians at football 3-1, which points out their striking cultural differences. ;) Miskin 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Well, you are almost completely right. Nevertheless, by both a linguistic (See: G.Hull, the linguistic unity of northern Italy and Rhaetia) and an anthropological point of view (see e.g. Luca Cavalli Sforza's books about genetic barriers in Europe), the so called 'Northern Italians' are very close to the Germans as well, even if more 'mixed': and they are not mediterranian at all (including even Ligurian people), rather alpine-like. This holds since ancient times as well. Finally, the linguistic element rather links French people to Rhaeto-Cisalpine ones (see again G.Hull), and separate them by strico sensu (i.e. paeninsular) Italian people. If you are interested in, please contac me at my user page. Bests, --Clamengh 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I tried to explain why the dates of the OE are relevant in the Turkey talk page. Cheers! Baristarim 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to propose deletion of this?

For your immediate attention! There is an image which you might consider for deletion. Image is given at the below.--OttomanReference 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC).