User talk:Macrakis/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia myself and suggest that you may add yourself to the lists of Greek Wikipedians and Multilingual Wikipedians. Etz Haim 08:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Stavros! Nice to see you on the Wikipedia. Evertype 10:48, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to make a reference to "Louveciennes, France" but because it didn't exist I finally make a link to France. If you encountered it inappropiate change de link to the first location. And if you can, please write a small stub of Louveciennes too (I don't speak french). And thank you for making this article of Jean Ichbiah! --suruena 08:28, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) – PS: Do you know what is the middle name of Jean Ichbiah? If so, add it to the article. Thank you again!

Hi!

On the matter of Ernst Herrera Legorreta: There are many Internet resources on his work with Nahuatl, but almost all of them are in Spanish. I believe the most recent edition of Karttunen's Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl makes reference to Legorreta's oligosynthetic work. I couldn't be sure.

I'll move the relevant paragraph to the talk page until some conclusive evidence can be found.

04:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Once I've separated the results for Fermin Herrera, Google yields little of value. Most of it seems to be Wikipedia mirrors. I'm in no way an expert on this, so I can't say anything authoritative. You seem to be far more knowledgeable.
  Binadot
  05:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Danakil: I regret not having able to respond to this before: I had to take a year off from contributing to Wikipedia (see my homepage for details). No, I am NOT Ernst Herrera Legorreta (EHL). But I happen to have met him personally (in an academic setting) while in Mexico and, being thus directly involved, it now seems to me that I shouldn't have been the original author of the bio article. Furthermore, I do agree with most of the other comments made here regarding the EHL article, and I concord with the idea of removing the bio article until more information can be obtained from other sources. The work of EHL is mostly known in the area of Programming Languages (a very serious, public source is the Mexican business magazine "EXPANSION" which has interviewed EHL at length at least two times, first in 1997 then in 1999, the records of which are available online through the magazine's web site). He has been (indirectly) nominated twice for the top technology prizes awarded by the Mexican Government (first, as the chief architect of Miramar Technology SAdeCV, and second, as the chief scientist of Tlallian SAdeCV). But of course, it could be argued that these facts, though indeed verifiable, do not qualify him for a bio article. To this I would comment that it might be reasonable to set slightly different degrees of minimum accomplishment to be worthy of a bio depending on the geographical context where the person in question mostly develops. Mexico is not the in the same league as the US in technological accomplishments. One final comment, regarding the Nahuatl aspect of EHL's work: unlike the work done in most US universities, that done in most of the Mexican ones (with some localized exceptions in certain academic areas, mostly from the UNAM and the ITESM) is *not immediately available online*, if it ever becomes so. This, I believe, explains the difficulty in finding online confirmation of EHL's Nahuatl-related work, which was done, IIRC, at the Universidad Autonoma de Tamaulipas and the Center for Huaxtec Studies in Tampico, Tamaulipas. I will try to find more information regarding that work and, in the meantime, I fully agree with the consensus reached about the deletion of the bio article. Nevertheless, I do believe that the NGL Programming Language (which was also removed at the time) should be reinstated. NGL is a descendant of the J Programming Language created by Herrera and about which there is firm, public information regarding its use by the government of several Mexican States (Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon being the most easily verifiable ones) in a large number of instalations covering, at least, 30 different municipalities. 201.135.18.50 07:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

If you aren't aware of it already, you may want to read my reply at

08:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is the Wikipedia house style to use plain ASCII quotes, rather than left/right quotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Use straight quotation marks and apostrophes. This is for readability of the source text; excessive use of HTML entities renders it rapidly unreadable. —Morven 14:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

My reason for putting two font versions of the Hebrew letters is that the ordinary "sans" version is generally used by default within Wikipedia, but most users who have (like myself) had only relatively little exposure to Hebrew may have seen only the normal printed versions, in a "serif" font (I believe this is not exactly the correct term) and they are quite a bit different in some cases, so I thought there was a need to show both side by side to avoid confusion. I've done something similar on the small table on the Hebrew alphabet article. Any other font variant would of course be welcome, and I seem to remember someone asking specfically about handwriting versions. rossb 10:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should have added that I was following the precedent of articles such as A which has images of both serif and sans versions at the top of the page, even though most readers of the English Wikipedia will probably be very familiar with both. rossb 11:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on

19:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello Stavro! Thanks for letting me know about the goings on; you'll already have seen that I made a few small edits (I hope that you're not regretting contacting me...). Is there something about this "people" vs "nation" business that I'm missing? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

omothriskos is not in LSJ (hard-copy); although of course its components are. But the article is quiet - let sleeping nationalists lie. Septentrionalis 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that should do it. Will observing that the Greek language, religion, and customs have changed over the last two millennia cause too much trouble? Septentrionalis 22:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis. Thankyou for the information on this user. Unfortunatly there is not much I can do when this user is not editing; I am severely restricted as to the length of ban I can give to anonymous IPs, even if they are used by only one person. I will try to keep on the situation as much as I can. Thanks anyway. Rje 00:58, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

the Harvard endnotes were right before, but someone added some sources out of order, and so it got messed up. thanks for pointing it out. It's fixed now, though there's one article, referenced as yaletfteach2 or something like that, whose pointer got lost. I'm going to try to figure out where it belongs in a couple of days. For now, I stuck it at the end of the list, where it's just an orphaned endnote, but not messing up the numbering. --jacobolus (t) 19:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

unfortunately, this 'consensus' was not visible to people watching only the Hellenes, but not the Greeks article, was it? I am not completely opposed to the merge, in that the Greeks article will focus on history anyway. Of course "Greeks" tends to refer to the modern population, while "Hellenes" is a rather polyvalent term, referring to ancient peoples. Anyway, the discussion of this is also possible on the Greeks page, so I'll just have a look at that now. regards,

14:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with your characterization. "Greeks" is the unmarked term, for ancient and modern peoples. "Hellenes" is either grandiloquent (i.e. used for the modern population primarily by romantic "Hellenophiles" wishing to emphasize real or imagined cultural or genetic continuity), or used in Bronze-Age contexts for the earliest settlers.

dab (ᛏ)

09:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

So, would the people insisting that "hellene" was "distorted" be the same cranks who insist upon using Erasmian pronunciation for Liturgical Greek? Just wondering.Dogface 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The individuals I've come across who have used Erasmianism with Liturgical Greek were either Protestants or irreligious. They do not use the Liturgy but try to adopt terminology--many of them have never actually heard it spoken in context.Dogface 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was taught to take pseudo-Xenophon seriously, as saying: these are the most prudent measures to maintain a democracy, for those vile enough to want one; and this is why they work . However, your Sprachgefühl may well be better than mine.

By the way, the douloi-were-free people have taken to misquoting Old Oligarch in Slavery. Please help keep an eye on this. Septentrionalis 16:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Also Athenian democracy, which needs serious help Septentrionalis 20:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem, it looked a little spurious, but I'm not interested in getting involved in any POV dispute. Everyking 11:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those superscripts! I knew I was missing something with my Wade-Giles transcription. Jiawen 07:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered to login. Contact me in User:Miskin.

Ta piata pou aneferes (shis, doner, gyros klp) den einai h pragmatiki Ellinika kouzina, einai i Elliniki kouzina gia tous touristes. H alithini Elliniki kouzina me ta thalassina tis kai ta kreatika tis den yparxei stin mesoanatoli. Akoma kai tin Tourkiki kouzina tha tin xaraktiriza 1/2 mesoanatolitiki kai 1/2 mesogiaki. To na peis oti i Elliniki kouzina pou exei stoixeia apo tin Tourkiki einai "klasiki masoanatolitiki" einai teleios atopo. Pigaine s'ena arabiko estiatorio kai pes mou posa onomata piaton tha anagnoriseis. Miskin 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is an ongoing poll in the talk page of the

article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier (compare to "Macedonian"). As it seems, the initiators of this poll were contributors from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people that _possibly_ share or represent a different point of view. Your participation to the discussion and the poll, are very welcome.

I am insvolved in a POV dispute with a rather odd fish on Democratic peace theory (See: Talk:Democratic peace theory#Disputes. For example, he regards The People's Republic of China renounced her alliance with the Soviet Union in 1961, thereafter creating a third, much smaller bloc of her own. as a POV statement. Am I mad? Am I overreacting? I would appreciate it if you would come take a look. If you regard this as too far out of your field, fine; feel free to ignore this notice. Septentrionalis 17:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking; the only necessary point is that PR China was *not* in the Soviet bloc when they went to war with Vietnam. IIRC also Kampuchea was in their bloc, while it existed. But Ultramarine has removed the POV clause in that sentence. Now all I really want is for him to stop editing with an egg-beater: one sentence pro-Rummel, one sentence con, two sentences pro, and so forth. Septentrionalis 15:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you were to nominate this for VfD, you certainly wouldn't get any objection from me. -- Hoary 07:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

PS meanwhile I've put up Global Language Monitor for VfD. -- Hoary 11:05, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Hm, there really seems to be a tidal wave of this stuff. (Haw haw haw.) Yes, do please go ahead with VfD. I'd do it myself, but right now I'm connected by modem and overpriced phone line; I'm not overjoyed by having to spend my time on this kind of thing, but the combination of time and money is too much. -- Hoary 00:13, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

04:15, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Pjjp-irrelevant this time, but you might enjoy letting your mind boggle at the Deep Thoughts within Graphical language. (Me, I'm going to bed. It's 1 a.m. here. G'night!) -- Hoary 15:43, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

From PJJP: Pls remove my vfd pages immediately (since I do not know how to do this). I understand your arguments.

Hi! You as a native speaker of Greek: can you help us out about how to call the river Aliákmon/Aliákmonas in this English wikipedia? See the discussion at Talk:Aliákmon. Markussep 19:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Macrakis, you have to be specific about which theories of Gimbutas' you are referring to. It is well known that towards her later life, she became more and more extreme, and hardly anything of this "brute feminism" phase is taken seriously. Nevertheless, in her earlier life, she was a very serious archaeologist, and just that she "lost it" later doesn't mean all of her theories are worthless. Her

5 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)

it's true that "archaeomythology" smells of Gimbutas and over-interpretation. But what's wrong with "Old European"? The term is certainly preferable to "Pre-Indo-European", which makes linguistic assumptions, and is not restricted to Europe (and may in principle applied to India and the Americas). I suggest the discussion of Gimbutas' view is taken from the intro and given in more detail. The statement I removed seemed to refer to the whole paragraph, including mention of "Kurgan". If you make explicit that Gimbutas' socio-religio-mythological speculations are widely rejected, I have no problem with that. We should probably take this discussion to the article's talk page.

dab (ᛏ)

6 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Grassman(n)'s Law

You said what I wrote as Grassman is really Grassmann - I used the spelling from Wyszecki and Stiles which probably where the confusion originates, but googling both convinces me you are probably right. But how do you justify Grassmann? I'd like to put a note in the article, but not just say "Google says Grassmann wins". PAR 22:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks for helping me watch this. The garbled passages must still be typos from my original entry, I'll try to fix them.

15:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

so it should, surely, but I haven't got the time to do it just now....

dab (ᛏ)

06:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Your translation is fine...

Κύριε Μακράκη, έχετε καιρό να έρθετε Ελλάδα, ετσι; :) Η μετάφραση σας είναι καλή και με ένα spellchecker θα ήτανε τέλεια. Στην Ελλάδα η προσκόληση σε παλαιότερα ήθη δεν έχει αλλάξει καθόλου, όμως: Ο Κοιλιόδουλος, εεεεε ο Χρηστόδουλος έχει απειλήσει με αφορισμό όποιον εκδόσει τη Βίβλο στα νέα ελληνικά. Είναι θέμα καθαρά νεοτροπίας. Classic case of "Not invented here" syndrome. Ο χρονογράφος δεν έχει δικιο ότι οποιοσδήποτε μπορεί να διαβάσει το κείμενο της κοινής ελληνικής. η γιαγιά μου ούτε που καταλαβαίνει τι λεει ο παπάς. Και η γιαγιά μου είναι αυτή που πάει εκκλησία όχι οι νεότεροι, που ειπάρχει περίπτωση να καταλάβουν δυο πράγματα.

PS: (YES, WE WON! No software pattents! woot!) Project2501a 03:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell do greeks that do not leave in greece go on to do lots of wonderful things and greeks that live in greece only try to kick each other's ass, rediccule, maim, shame hustle each other? I really don't get this... why do i need to seriously consider migrating from greece, if i want to grow as a person and actually make a buck? Why does it feel like the junta was never really overthrown?

γιατί γαμώτο μου η Ελλάδα να με πεθαίνει κάθε μέρα; Γιατί έχω τον καθε $!$*%&#$# να μου λέει "Έτσι είναι εδώ"; :~(

Project2501a 13:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Πρέπει να φύγεις, Πρότζεκτ. Δεν υπάρχει άλλη λύση. Η αρνητική ενέργεια θα σε κυριεύσει αν μείνις περισσότερο.--Theathenae 16:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Re file Macraki mipos eisai kathisterimenos? Me ti vlakeies kathesai kai asxoleisai? Prospatheis na mas bgaleis blakes i pseutes diladi emas tous upoloipous? Apla den katalabaino ti logous exeis na kathesai na asxoleisai me tis diafores tis arxaias kai neas koinis, les kai eipe kaneis allos oti prokeitai gia to idio kai to auto. Tis kseroume tis diafores, euxaristoume poly, einai grammenes kai sta arthra. Ton eksipno pas na kaneis? Miskin 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ki esy re ProjectXXX me to sumpathio adelfe alla mipos se exei faei i malakia? Se periptosi pou den to exeis katalabei, eisai eksisou karagkiozis me tous extremistes tis akrodeksias pou kathesai kai brizeis. Basika eisai ki esu o idios extremistis xoris na to katalabaineis. O sofos anthropos katigorei kai uperaspizetai ti xora tou analoga me tis sunthikes. To na kathesai apla na katigoreis tous Ellines editors stin wikipedia epeidi de sumfonoun me tis politikes sou pepithiseis, prokeitai gia malakinsi 1ou bathmou. Ante giati apo tote pou egine i aristera tis modas ntunontai oloi sta kokkina kai agourazoun kai prada. Miskin (This is addressed to Project2501a -- I am copying it to his Talk page. --Macrakis 17:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC))

Hi. I apologise for any trouble I might have caused you. Anyway, here's something on topic: Me and a couple of friends are trying to fix up Category:Computer science and Category:Software engineering. They are both a mess. And we'll try to put some guidelines together on how things should be categorised. Anyway, if you don't mind I wanna ask a question: I'm not quite sure if Computer languages fall direcly under computer science, since those are the tools comp-sci people use to do their work, or do they fall under software engineering or any other part. What's your opinion? Thanks in advance. Project2501a 20:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Macrakis,

  Thanks for your improvement.  Cheers,--Carl Hewitt 06:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have copied the relevant discussion from User talk:Eequor to Talk:Jorge_Luis_Borges#Dubious_see-alsos. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It has been some time since I scrutinized the article while I continue to fix various problems with others, so I thank you for bringing that to my awareness. You are right in the presumption that this attribution is ultimately peculiar in that it is superficial and has no meritorious accounts from scholarly/academic sources. Consequently, I have deleted it from the article.--Glyphonhart 22:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I added a link to this from computer algebra based on that article.From your comments it seems that the opening paragraph of automatic differentiation is incorrect. Could you take a look and fix it, if it indeed is incorrect?

Thanks Cje 18:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Stavros, I noticed you made some valuable edits to woodworking-related articles

21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Aëtius??

Why did you change Aetius in Aëtius? "ë" was not part of Latin alphabet, neither it is currently used in English. He is widely known as Aetius.--Panairjdde 10:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I am moving this to Aetius for further discussion among all interested. --Macrakis 15:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but be sure to add your answer, since you made the change! ;-) --Panairjdde 16:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I will add, here, that my edition of Gibbon prints Aetius, and it is a fine reprint of Bury's edition (without the notes), so it probably has Gibbon's usage right; but I have no informed opinion more than I have said on the Talk page. I hope my curmudgeonliness did some good. Septentrionalis 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Good job so far on formalizing the

and other types of sequences where the zeroes occur at predictable intervals). For example, if I wanted to submit the sequence

1, 2, 3, 0, 2, 3, 4, 0, 3, 4, 5, 0, 4, 5, ...

the OEIS Internal Format Specs would suggest I send it in as

1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, ...

But only if the recurrence of zeroes is painfully obvious. OEIS: A063441 begins

1, -3, -4, 0, -6, 12, -8, 0, 0, 18, -12, 0, -14, 24, 24, 0, -18, 0, -20, 0, 32

and even some very smart people might not realize that the pattern of zeroes is given by OEIS: A013929. PrimeFan 16:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand the practical reasons for archiving. I do wonder, though, what this does to the cumulativity of discussions. Not that unarchived Talk pages are necessarily consulted for background systematically.... --Macrakis 18:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't archive this particular page, but I do often archive after coming to a contentious page. Such pages usually have alot of long winded debate, and I find it best to clear the air and allow for people to take a fresh start periodically ;) Sam Spade 19:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made a stab at cleaning up the nationalism; if you care to take a look, please do. The PoV brigade seems very quiet; have they been banned today? Septentrionalis 22:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you have more Byzantine linguistics than I do; feel free to adjust. I was just adapting Buck's Comparative Grammar to the purpose. Is there really a difference between the various spellings of /i/ in Demotic, or is that a Katharevsa affectation? I left it in the article because I didn't know it was false. Septentrionalis 23:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't think there needs to be a spot for Tax Honesty Movement, please don't revert the section. If you don't agree with it and want it changed, please cite your sources. Thank youbb69 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)BB69

I've found that http://countrystudies.us/albania/49.htm (it seems to be an archived copy of http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/altoc.html - library of congress, public domain) with a websearch and while it might need cross-check etc, it shows 3 (or more) different numbers for 1989. You might find interesting Epirus too. +MATIA ☎ 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is what you already know, namely that he is wrong. It is true that the "Erasmic" pronunciation is only an approximation and a compromise. "Erasmic" is still rather closer to 5th century BC Attic than the Modern Greek pronunciation, it is difficult for speakers of stress-accentuated languages (such as English and Modern Greek) to realize the tonal accent; Modern Norwegians will probably do a much better job in pronouncing Ancient Greek than Modern Greeks. As a reference, I can give you Vox Graeca : The Pronunciation of Classical Greek by W. Sidney Allen,

10:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have a quote from Babiniotis regarding mediae etc, please put it into

Andreas

23:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I wondered why the talk on this had dried up, until I realised that it had been moved to Ancient Greek phonology which I didn't have in my watchlist. You might like to contribute to the ongoing debate, which is now under mediation. --rossb 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please be patient. While Thrax have said some things that were wrong, he was right about others (for example the reconstructed pron. wasn't used in Germany for a long time because of Reuchlin). I also think that you are familiar with some things that I wasn't aware of at all, before getting involved with that article (I felt like "reinventing the wheel" sometimes). +MATIA ☎ 17:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

editor's view

I'd like to let you know that i endorse yours view. Not thrax one. Philx Philx 22:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Done Philx Philx 22:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Logical exemplum

Dear mackrais, i've posted recetly in the debate some things that can make reason Thrax, just see above how he defends(withouth knowing much about ancient's greek inflection, I suppose) the theory that, if H,U,Ei,Oi there is no modification in the sense of the sentences, in fact if UMeis and Hmeis are pronounced same way, how the can make distiction between "you" and"we" ? He reports that they would have preceived distinciton in declination, this is no true , because, EI KALH KORH; H KALH KORH ; EI(eimi verb) KALH KORH would sound identically as i kali kori.P.S the comments are under the section "sounding authentic " F.S.S.D Philx Philx 23:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, i ll do my best

Hi. I thought you might like to know that Taxman and I are discussing a possible RfC against BB69 on Taxman's talk page. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mackrais X is in italian kh, i think that germanic ich it is more close than what you've said, but i can be wrong,EVXARISTOS IN GREEK, could you please help me on this example thank you! Philx 11:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC).P.S i said that ich is pronounced like k aspirated because there are difficulties in italian to reproduce aspiration,and to an italian guy k with aspiration would seem the most right thing.

I've restored the cases that BB69 cited in Income tax in the United States... and clarified their holdings to show that they support the power to tax wages as income. BD2412 T 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have replied on

17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true, we should report people's beliefs that this logarithmic ratio of pi is somehow special (and probably confine the opposite opinion to a "criticism" section), I'm just saying you probably won't get a straight answer out of them because really there's nothing to it. You can wade through this [1] if you want. —Keenan Pepper 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What we are experiencing here is nothing compared to

21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We are in agreement regarding the meaning of the word history. Based on Kafkania pebble (if genuine) and other findings, the earliest greek written records are 17th C. BC (or early 16th C if the bebble is a fake). Regards, Sysin 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Selam Macrakis. Your knowledge on Turkish is good enough for me to understand:) About çörek, there is no association for it. At least it is not traditional in large festivals, but may be in local festivals. No it's not considered as Christian food, but it is not considered as Muslim food too. People generally prefer to bake it home, but there are lots of places for people to buy.

Do you have any historical roots on Turkey (especially Safranbolu). I hope i could answer your questions. Whenever you want to ask, at least i can try to answer.--Ugur Basak 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis, there are lots of similarities about culture and genetically in Greeks and Turks(especially for westerns side).

About Lahmacun it's said that it came form Arabic lahm-i acin or lahmü'l-acin lahm for meat and acin for dough. They both mean "dough with meat". I couldn't understand what you mean about sauce. Döner is really an important fast-food in Turkey. For example Mc Donald's and some others try to make new products similar to Döner for attracting attention. Normally Döner kebab is from red-meat but nowadays there is an alternative with chicken-meat. Kebap has a few types, Döner kebap is normally served like hamburger but using Turkish breads or it is served with rice (pilav).

Do you know history about Safranbolu. I guess it's an important city for Greeks and Roman empire before 1100s or 1300s. I don't know how important it was but it's not just a normal city. Görüşmek üzer(see you)--Ugur Basak 22:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same banks. There were several banks called "Industrial Bank" of one sort or another in China at that time. There is still one (www.cib.com.cn) which is not connected with either of the two. --JuntungWu 10:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll get right to the point. I made some edits in the Manakis brothers in order to protect it from the typical MacSlav nation-building propaganda. And now I'm wondering about yourself: Assuming no prior knowledge to the subject, what does the name "Militiadis Manakis" ring to you? Doesn't the Slavic unjustified transformation into "Milti Manaki" (or whatever) alarm something? Now as for the ethnic "Vlach" part, do you have any credible sources to verify it? Miskin 16:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I've been using World Book Encyclopedia's transcription method. World Book uses American English to transcribe words. Unfortunately, IPA is not used very often in the US (where a majority of English speakers live). I can go ahead and name the system, though.

Primetime 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry mackrais i do not understand fully what you say at Yannos's talk page about greek moods,Modern greek doesn't have a morphologic subjunctive? I mean the subjunctive is formed thanks to a perposition NA ? And why for your opinion aren't important morphological moods? --Philx 13:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks Mackrais for your exausthuve explanation of what should be and if should be considered να subjunctive. Still , you can call me traditionalist if you'd like to, can't fully accept what you say, all grammars have to have a model to wich refers to, as you said latin perfectly fits this role. As you've explaned va is Not subjunctive mood, it is only a particle that applies to the subordinate a valor of dubious and wish, but this is not what the subjunctive mood does morphologically? Of course it does. And why not having a mood that tells about this sitation in all tenses??. Allow me to tell you that is different NomiZo trexei than thelo na trechei, so in greek a volitive preposition that is thelo na can't have the subjunctive mood excuse me , i may understand wrongly what are you saying clearly, in the perfect and aorist tenses there isn't subjunctive in greek? How you would say in greek " Voglio che tu abbia corso" in italian that can be translate i want you ran? thanks for a your reply. F.S.S.D --Philx 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you again Mackrais ,for yor disponibilty to talk with me about those things, but i think you are missing one of my question, could you please translate into greek "Voglio che tu corra" I want you to run, with the same subjunctive effect? You said, john gave it to mary, isn't to be considerd as dative, why not? considering it as dative doesn't clarify things? What i mean that i don't agree with what you said in Yannos talk page " it is useless complicate thing morphologically" or something, why? it is not more usefull reading thing clearer and hearing them clerearer? For example, when you say in italian "pensavo che fossi corso"

I thought you ran, the subjunctive tells 2 important information.

• The type of action that is seen by the writer\speaker, that is in this case of doubous.
• The relationship of anteriority of between the regent and its subordinate. Any of words from your erudite speech is well accepted. F.S.S.D --Philx 20:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Again thanks but:

• Nomizo oti etrexes or exeis trexeis isn't the same thing of fossi corso! because in this greek sentences there isn't the doubious or the wish expressed! It is only indicative! It is seen only as a fact.
• Casam it is only acussative, stop. Only Romam or other city names expresses into accusative movement motus ad locum. In casam it is a preoisitionmotus in loco.It is accusative because is seen that is the accusative as if it were the objective of that movement.At least, you said that the subjunctive informations are important only for languages with such distinctions, Why? Modern greek does not distinguish the time as the ancient one?Still sorry if i become pedant i do not understand why for you are obsolete moods that carry these kin of informations Thanks for an your eventual reply --Philx 00:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Again thanks my friend. to answer your questions:

• Ancient greek optative is subjunctivus obliqus in latin.
• In casam is for latin accusative case while for finnish illative, but the always indicate the same things! Only that Latin Feels this case as the object of arriving of an action, so that's why accusative. Like ancient greek too i should say.
• You would then making me believe that modern greek doesn't need to express subjunctive features in the past tenses? A bit strange don't you think? --Philx 02:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Mackrais. --Philx 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at this:

02:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC) What about sufflaki??? --Philx 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) You have deleted Coca - Cola. Why? You said "although a Greek *company* is a major Coca-Cola bottler, most of the actual bottling is done locally in each market" First of all Coca Cola HBC is the second biggest bottler of Coca cola not a major. You can spot the difference i believe. Is Nike an amerikan company? If yes, the whole production is made in the "third" world" as you know, and Nike is only responsible for the marketing and distribution.

I'm back; what are the current problem areas? (I hurt my hand in November, and took a while to gather the courage to face the collected idiocy again.) Septentrionalis 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis. I was wondering whether you'd like to add your input to this debate going on here:Talk:Ancient Macedonian language#Greek language template. Maybe from your own experience reading references on ancient Greek, you can give your impression on the situation. Excuse me if you don't want to get into this, but it's simply a question of references. I'm trying to ascertain the situation myself and maybe I'm mistaken about what general references say. Alexander 007 14:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Macrakis, thanks a lot for your

10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed: 2nd deletion request for Afshar experiment article!

A non-expert is again requesting deletion of the article. [2] Your vote would be appreciated. Prof. Afshar 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis, I'm not sure if this is exactly within your field of interest, but I'd appreciate your help: There is a new, expert user who wants to build up a new Wikiportal

22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \pi }$

Can you explain why you r evrted my ${\displaystyle \pi }$=$pi edits? I changed for asthetic reasons ,why revert ?--Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Macrakis:

Recalling the BB69 matter back in December, a somewhat interesting discourse (with, shall we say, some "similarities") has been developing with an editor named "Xode" at the discussion page Talk:United States Dollar at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_dollar#Article_neutrality_and_factuality_dispute

under the heading for Factuality Dispute. I am in no way comparing Xode's conduct to the outrageous behavior of BB69. The similarity lies in part in the way certain editors seem to be on a "mission" to educate everyone on what they perceive as some great injustice and, I argue, want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox as part of that mission. When you see the materials Xode is promoting regarding the Federal Reserve and the banking system and compare them to the tax protester rhetoric, I think you'll know exactly what is going on. Your input on that Talk page would bring a lot to the table! Xode's User Talk page is interesting too. Yours, Famspear 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

: "Another interesting fact is that the name Macedonia was virtually forbidden for use in Greece before seventies in the last century. Actually, the northern part of Greece was called “Northern Greece”. Meantime, Greeks realized that they can benefit more if they adopt the name of Macedonia. Starting from that point, the northern part of Greece was renamed to Macedonia and many shops, airports, streets etc got the Macedonian name. So, Greece is using the name Macedonia for its northern part for 30 years, but Republic of Macedonia is using its name officially from 1945 (that is 60 years)!" Maybe you could scan a map of Greece from your Greek Encyclipedia and send it to him. 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your wrote here:

An oxymoron must be *internally* contradictory; removing tendentious examples

Maybe that's one definition, but by no means the only one. Besides - to some people - those examples you removed may well have been *internally* contradictory, but just not to you. Just because you didn't understand them in the *intended* way simply means you're not *in the loop* with their way of thinking. Oxymoron are definitely POV, and therefore are allowed, including those that don't coincide with your POV.

Please respect other's views and contributions to the same degree you expect others to respect yours. If you really feel an example is really that terribly "unoxymoronic," at least ask the contributor what it means. You might be surprised to learn that it's a common oxymoron within a large community of people, or in another culture than your own. --

19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I have updated the above article in direct response to your talk page query (from October), as it is frequently asked. I will look at tidying and expanding the article more in the near future, but felt you might just be interested in that response. Regards, --Lawlore 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

The interwiki bot was adding fr:Embranchement particulier because there was a link to Siding in the french version of the article. I fixed it. ▪ Eskimo ☼ 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think either

19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Such an article would be redundant, the information is in

Andreas

20:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

CIty names

I could not agree more. Definitely all the history of a place must be mentioned. I am proud of the history of Turkish towns. Like Istanbul. I am proud of its "Byzantium"nuss, its "Konstantinopolis"ness. Its Roman, Greek and Turkish cultures. The point is; the historical names must be mentioned within the context. That is; in the historical part of the text. In the examples you are giving, in the Thessaloniki example, the Turkish name Selanik is not mentioned on the first line and for the good reason. Regards. Ormands 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[Replying to your note on myu talk page] Hi. I never contested the use of the name of Konstantinopolis (which I very much prefer to Francophone-sounding Constantinople) during the Ottoman times, or that it might even be in use by Turks of Greek origin today. But the point is; the official, and current English name for "the city" today is Istanbul. There are no parallel names in English. If it is called "Konstantinopolis" in Greek, fine, but it belongs to Greek Wikipedia, not the English one. Otherwise Konstantinopolis is a historical name and it needs to be mentioned within the history section. After all, you would not call New York as "also known as 'New Amsterdam', but instead you would mention it in its history. The name Konstantinopolis is a very important one (I can not think of Istanbul without its Greek past - actually I can not think of our culture without the Greek past - after all, I am a Turk of Kurdish and Cretan descent.), but it is a historical one, and knowing from my Greek friends, promoting it as a parallel name is a very sneaky chauvinistic attitute. I believe we both have to be less chauvinistic about a lot of things. Believe me I am very familiar with this attitude. My Greek friends always stress that Istanbul also means "to the city" in Greek. So what? You should only be happy. About the Antalya; I did not remove the Greek name from the body. I moved it to the historical part and I removed the Greek Alphabet one. I left the Greek name in Latin alphabet "Attalia" as it is. What is the point of placing Greek alphabet version in the English language Wikipedia? Should we also have it in Cyrillic, and beautiful Georgian, Arabic and Armenian alphabets also? Yes, but, NOT in the English Wiki!. Best Regards. Ormands 23:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw your clarification in the article English words of Greek origin. Please read the talk page because I think your edit is confusing rather than clarifying.

In the talk page you will see that it can be easily proven that the actual percentage exceeds 20%. Read User:Odysseas's research.

Furthermore, you will see that there is a big debate about how "scientific" are the scientific words.

Please come back to me with your comments.

NikoSilver 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• ...(Any counter study) talks about the number of words, not about their frequency of use...

Frequency of use is subjective. Furthermore, you do not include this arguement in your edit of the article. Finally, the English Vocabulary is defined as the TOTAL set of English words that exist rather than just the frequently used ones.

• ...As for the French vs. Greek business, yes, many words came through French from Greek, but then we can also trace many of them to Indo-European...

Indo-European is an artificial and hypothetical BRANCH. It is not a language that we have discovered and it may have never existed. It is the only logical way of how most languages may have been formed. If the French or English or Latin didn't use any words from the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European language

for centuries and they imported them directly or indirectly from Greek, then these words are by no means French or English or Latin. They are either Indo-European-TO-Greek-TO-whatever -OR- they are just Greek. In the first case, I would think that Greek should be credited for their origin, since Indo-European may be fictional. Furthermore, your logic would end up showing that 100% of English (or any other language) comes from the first human tribe, which would be a pointless conclusion.

• ...Clearly the percentages should add up to much more than 100%...

No they should not, if they were structured in a tree form. Provided there is certainty as per which branch of the tree used them first. Who came first, however, can be very easily proven in your Greek vs French question (or Greek vs any other language) by the thousands of Anchient Greek texts.

• ...Finally, this is all a silly game, as though somehow the proportion of words from Ancient Greek reflected well on you and me. I find it embarrassing...

There is no game. It is a quest for knowledge. There are hundreds of linguists argueing about the roots of English. Hundreds of courses in Colleges and Universities work on this "game" all over the world. Just do a Google search for "roots of English" to be convinced.

Well-reflecting on you and me, would be to try to find the correct percentage and contribute to wikipedia in a way.

Embarrassing would be to deal with this subject in both a nationalistic and a phobo-nationalistic POV way. That being said, the fact that I -personaly- as a Greek would be prouder and happier for my ancestors, had they contributed more to the world vocabularies, sciences, arts, politics etc., cannot be used as an arguement. Nobody will stop me from feeling that way though and that is far from embarrassing. By the way, how do you feel?

NikoSilver 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Macrakis, I just wanted to say thanks for your input in the matter with Sysin. Guess he doesn't get it that I understand what his trying to say but the way things are set up right now, he's entering articles under the wrong category. Oh well. I noticed on your user page your from MA. I'm originally from MA, worked in Framingham for a while. Currently out West, but all my family is back in MA, from the Worcester/Shrewsbury area. Thank you again!!  :) ~Theodoris, 9 February 2006

Macrakis, I find it surprising that you described me as 'chauvinist'. You were there in the early days of the Greeks article, when 128.113.201.75 was trying promote his "omaimon, omothriskon, yadayada" thesis. You've seen me take out nationalistic edits from the 'Greek Migrations' timeline ("and then the Greeks armies conquered ... etc"). I know you got upset when I objected to MBE's edits, but it was not a matter on nationalism, it was a matter of clarity and accuracy; there is nothing nationalistic in my objecting the mention of tourism in a timeline about migrations. You can call me anal about clarity and accurate wording, and you'd be correct, but chauvinist, no. Accuracy and clarity are precisely the reasons why the categories in question should be renamed to clarify that they are not about all Macedonians, but only about people from the (fy)RoM. sys < in 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I forgot to say thank you for helping out over at Krifo scholio - and for your kind words. See you around, Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Σταύρο, επιδίδεσαι εδώ, όπως τα λες και στη σελίδα χρήστη, σε αγώνα δύσκολο και εκνευριστικό (γι' αυτό εξάλλου και γω δεν πολυανακατεύομαι) -- αλλά σε συγχαίρω που συνεχίζεις να ασχολείσαι. Ως φησιν αγγλιστί, you are a good egg. Opoudjis 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the Demotic

schwa in up? The two Greeks are further apart than I thought...:}, but you are a good egg.Septentrionalis

23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't --- but what does? :-) Neither Greek has a schwa after all. (Not post PIE, anyway.) I admit I haven't checked out how Ancient Greek handled schwas in loans; Modern Greek does it with /a/. Names from Hebrew had both /a/ and /e/: Δεβώρα for Dəborah, Ζαχαρίας for Zəchariah.

Irismeister

Thanks, I've forwarded your concerns to the rest of the arbitrators, some of whom are more knowledgeable than I when it comes to Irismeister. At first glance it looks like the IP's location might not match up with Irismeistr's IP, though.

t

23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see we have another crank; but we should mention his theory, and the critical article, at the bottom with all the others. Sigh. Septentrionalis 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much afraid we have another spillover from Usenet here. Just as our mutual friend "Thrax" was "Agamemnon", the anonymous Faucounnau addict at

Phaistos Disk, with his penchant for bold text and using "the" before nouns with genitives in English, is in all likelihood "grapheus" - who in turn is believed by most Usenet people to be none other than Faucounnau himself. Sigh... Lukas ^(T.|@)

23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming issue

I don't have any sources available, that's why I was asking. It's interesting however that UK in the United Nations is listed as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [3], whereas in EU (former EEC) is listed as United Kingdom [4]. Obviously the "UK" part is several centuries old. Odysses (☜) 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Γεια σου Σταύρο, don't worry, I think there are worse topics than the loanwords article for the Greek-enthusiasts to play with. I don't really see that one as that important, do you? But I'll keep an eye on it. After all, the wish to have some more figures about the ultimately-Greek (indirect) loans, over and above those 5%, is not completely wrong in itself. I think one of those guys actually had found a book, by some Greek author, which didn't seem totally pseudo at first sight. So, if we can draw some more info out of that, why not? :-) See you around, Lukas

What's wrong with you? Why do you undervalue other people's education, effort and work? Why is it chauvinistic to bring up a book that might give some light in a polite discussion? How can you be certain that the Greek contribution has not been undervalued, especially since nobody has ever actually done such an etymological study in the past?

It is wrong to be a chauvinist. It is wrong to be the on other extreme too. I don't really think that this is your case. I think that in your effort to sound neutral you just over-do it. NikoSilver 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you got it right! Congratulations! :-) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

hm, is it even possible to be the sock of an anon? Shouldn't we consider Rose-mary the primary account, and 80.90 as Rose-mary editing logged out? See also

20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

you are right of course. I think we should present the anon with the alternative of choosing a new account name or be known as Rose-mary henceforth. This game is boring, and he is not very good at playing it. This person seems to be too used to usenet :) where lying about your identity is considered good style or at least normal. I think sprotection is in order now to impress on him that this is not so on WP.

dab (ᛏ)

06:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Macedonia if you can. --Latinus 12:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated this for deletion, as another WHEELERism. If it were not encumbered by the GDFL tag to Wikinfo, I would have simply rewritten it. Let me know what you think. Septentrionalis 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Stavros! I noticed your work on and interst in

01:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

File, eimai Ellinas (opos kai esi fisika) kai xriazomai afti tin stigmi ti politimotati voithia sou.

• 1.Stin Elliniki wiki kai sigekrimena, sto arthro: Makedonas, pou einai sxedon olo, diki mou dimiourgia kai tora iparxi ipopsifiotita gia diagrafi tou arthrou stin selida [[5]]

Se parakalo para poli, ean thelis vevea kai exis tin kalosini, na psifisis gia tin paramoni kai mi diagrafi tou arthrou. Sigekrimena stin selida [[6]] na psifisis os exis:

• διατήρηση και να μπει το πρότυπο {{disputed}}. ας αφήσουμε όποιον θέλει να το προχωρήσει. --Onoma

Diladi diatirisi, ... kai to onoma sou, opos parapano!

---

• 2.Stin Germaniki wiki kai sigekrimena, sto arthro: Elliniki (Proto-Elliniki) Glossa, pou einai olo, diki mou dimiourgia kai tora iparxi ipopsifiotita gia diagrafi tou arthrou stin selida 21.Hellenische Sprachen

Se parakalo para poli, ean thelis vevea kai exis tin kalosini, na psifisis gia tin paramoni kai mi diagrafi tou arthrou. Sigekrimena stin selida 21.Hellenische Sprachen na psifisis os exis:

• Natürlich behalten --Onoma

Diladi , fisika diatirisi (=Natürlich 'behalten) kai to onoma sou, opos parapano!

---

Y.G. Ean thelis, mporis na metavivasis tin paraklisi mou, se alous filous kai empistous Ellines opos kai esi?

• Parakalo pliri exemithia kai mistikotita! (Apefthinsou mono se poli empista atoma.) Efxxaristo! --Kamikazi2 13:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Xriazome-aste ti voithia sou, giati apo oti eida kseris kalitera galika apo oti ego! Koita, to arthro afto exi protathi distixos, meta apo kapies diorthosis pou ekana, gia diagrafi: w:fr:Macédoine grecque.

• Se parakalo voithise kai kane oti mporis gia na min diagrafi!!!! --84.164.207.72 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis. I was wondering if you could please help me out on the Adana page. Some Turkish editor wants to remove the Greek name and a paragraph about the Adana massacre. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who is responsible for this on the Greeks article? Thanks. "The modern Greeks consider themselves to be the inheritors of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilizations and cultures. Through history, the definition of Greekness has varied: Many Byzantines valued the classical tradition, many repudiated it; almost all regarded themselves as the Orthodox heirs of Rome. The idea of a special connection with the classical past revived with the heretic Gemistus Pletho and the work of Cyriac of Ancona; it became fairly common with the emergence, in the late 18th century, of the nation-state, and its gradual consolidation. Greece became the first country in the Balkans to come into being, both as a nation-state and breaking away from an empire. The Greek revolutionary movement formed its own definition of Greekness out of the Greek cultural heritage, with what modern scholars call romantic nationalism; this also attracted foreign support from the Philhellenes."

It is so imersed in ignorance and is so arrogant that it verges on racism. It really has to go; what was wrong with the compromise we reached? Politis 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you object to here. Do you disagree that modern Greeks consider themselves to be inheritors of the ancient and Byzantine civilization? Do you disagree that the definition of Greekness has varied? Do you disagree that Plethon and others emphasized the classical connection in a way that their predecessors did not? Do you disagree that the classical connection became more important in the second half of the 18th century? Do you disagree that Greece was the first nation-state in the Balkans? Do you disagree that romantic nationalism and the philhellenes were important to the emergence of 19th century Greek self-identity? --Macrakis 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that Macrakis' and Pmanderson's latest version is vastly superior to the preceding ones. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate this; but if everyone reasonable is going to ignore the issue, I see no solution but a {{TotallyDisputed}} tag and let it go to the crows. Septentrionalis 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis, can you please point me to the discussion where Republic of Macedonia became the official WP naming convention?--Avg 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Things seem to have been edited since I last looked at

Wikipedia:Naming conventions

: "In addition to following the naming conventions it is also important to follow the linking conventions. Following consistent conventions in both naming and linking makes it more likely that links will lead to the right place." That isn't much of a dictate to link to the article instead of a redirect.

As for the question from

Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive4, which seems to be some sort of poll on the topic. Jkelly

22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link Jkelly. I must say that I haven't found a definite decision there, perhaps I haven't looked carefully enough. May I say here (as it is also mentioned in the linked discussion), that FYROM was a compromise accepted by BOTH sides. And at least, since it is very sensitive to Greeks, I can guarantee that every Greek is offended by seeing in a prominent position on their country's page a FYROMian POV.--Avg 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The article name is

Republic of China. WP uses the full names of these states, and does not use "China" to refer to either one. The "Republic of Macedonia" compromise has proven pretty stable and I don't see it as productive to reopen the question. I could swear there was some fairly clear decision on WP policy about this, but I cannot find it right now. --Macrakis

23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems you choose to ignore that FYROM is not a "preference" of most Greeks. No Greek actually likes it. The preference of most Greeks is Skopje and this is how this country is still universally called in Greece. FYROM is a compromise reached by both sides and a name used by FYROM itself internationally. Its role is exactly to be used in place of either "Skopje" or "Macedonia". I find hard to believe that people are ready to discredit and throw in the garbage bin years of talks between high government officials of both countries, which ended in a compromise. This is why the name FYROM was constructed in the first place, nobody is happy with it, but everyone has to use it.--Avg 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia written in English. "Skopje" is almost never used in English to refer to the RoM; after all, it is the name of a city. FYROM was a compromise in some international organizations where Greece in effect has a veto. Greece does not have a veto on the Wikipedia. And it is not true that "everybody has to use" the name FYROM. The US government, for example, has used the name "Macedonia" since November 2004 (not even Republic of Macedonia), as you can see for example in the CIA factbook, the US Embassy web site, etc. Almost all international reference works use "Macedonia". "Republic of Macedonia" is a good and stable compromise. --Macrakis 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that Skopje is used in English. It was you who ascertained that FYROM is Greek POV. Skopje is the clear Greek POV and I will never support its usage in Wikipedia. I'm only supporting neutrality. Again "compromise" <> "Greek POV". Now everybody is all the countries in UN, EU, NATO and also IOC. USA decided to use the name Macedonia only for bilateral relations with FYROM. They do not use it when in the framework of international organisations. "Republic of Macedonia" is used nowhere except Wikipedia. It is an arbitrary fabrication of some people here who believe that they serve NPOV because they don't know simple facts. Well NPOV is already served and its name is FYROM.--Avg 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be at

Talk:Republic of Macedonia, were everyone else can participate. Stavro, I'm afraid, the only readily available neutral source is Columbia, which merely indicates that Monastir is its former name and that it existed prior to the Slavic arrivals. As for the origin of the name, Miskin is the one with the sources on the origin of the name "Bitola" (he claims). User:Bitola has claimed no sources. --Latinus

23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW I doubt that it was called "Monastir" in Roman times. --Latinus 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When I respect people giving relevant reference, I follow them up, especially in a field where I specialise: Χτες είδα τον Βερέμη σε μία ομιλία του, τον ρώτησα σχετικά με την ταυτότητα των Ελλήνων και ποιες από τις 3 προτάσεις εκφράζουν την πιο σωστή άποψη.

• The modern Greeks consider themselves to be the inheritors of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilizations and cultures.
• The modern Greek state is the inheritor of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilizations and cultures
• The modern Greeks are the inheritors of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilisations and cultures.

He said, "definitely the third version sounds more correct because; they inherited the language with through the language they homogenised the region. It is a question of education”. His talk was about Greek-Turkish relations. He expanded on certain Ottoman parameters and the Greeks and mentioned the englightement figures, Moisiodax and Daniel Moschopoulos. He pointed out that though they are considered as Greeks, they are not. One is a Romanian Bulgarian from Moisia and Dassia, and the other a Vlach. He said that Moscholpoulos is the one who declared, "Be glad Blakan peoples, you will become Greeks". Veremis stressed Moschopoulos was not a Greek nationalist. In conclusion, I respect your reliance on academic procedures and I hope you will respect my own. Also thanks for your non 'ad hominem' attitude. Politis 10:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Politis, I would kindly like to correct one thing: An inheritor is a person who is legally entitled or by will to inherit something to another. Therefore, the inheritor inherits. The heirs which receive the inheritance are called "the inheritants". In other words, modern Greeks are the inheritants of the ancient Greek and Byzantine Civilizations and Cultures.*minekarahan*

Kane omogeneis na deis kalo... Miskin 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I provided my sources in Talk:Greeks, yet pmanderson keeps reverting me under childish accusations. This time you have no valid reason to oppose me. Miskin 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I Apreciate your thoughts. However do you really belive that such an adition to the Florina article would survive for long in the face of all kinds of hotheads? Regards --Realek 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Look what happened at the

14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stavro, you have an old Greek encyclopedia, could you scan a old Map of Greece that has the word ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ on it?

02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your comments on Ptolemy (disambiguation). I agree that the non-dab content will need to be split off to a different article, and I have been discussing this elsewhere. Probably stuff will end up at Ptolemy (name). But I would be grateful if you could leave this for a few days until the discussions have finished elsewhere. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In case you are interested, I've summarised things at Talk:Ptolemy (disambiguation), where I'm also trying to centralise the discussions before splitting them off to the relevant places. Carcharoth 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the PQCC article. From time to time, I may forget to append {{cleanup}} to the entry, as was the case with this entry. Your revision is greatly appreciated.

Cheers. Folajimi 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kala re sy, den ntrepesai ligaki? Miskin 12:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Koita file mou poios paei na mou kanei mathima ithikis. Miskin 14:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Apetyxes na me pagidepseis Makraki. Pos niotheis tora pou apektises enan exthro? Miskin 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you Google, you'll see that the "true sole" is Heteromycteris proboscideus. Gdr 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm kidding, by the way. "True sole" is FishBase's preferred common name for Heteromycteris proboscideus, which doesn't mean that it is in fact commonly used.

As to the two Dover soles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) says to use scientific names when there's confusion, so if you want a disambiguation page at Dover sole, then the Pacific Dover sole should be moved to Microstomus pacificus. Gdr 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth making a list of all fish with "sole" in the name. FishBase has several hundred entries at [8]. Better to name to couple of well-known food species and leave the rest to the articles on the families. By the way, I disagree with your split. It seems wrong to make the reader navigate two disambiguation pages when one would do: it's not as if sole is very long. Gdr 11:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue –

15:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tortuga

Hey Macrakis,

Check out my comments at talk:tortuga. Sorry I have to disagree with you, but in fact your argument has made me realize that it should definitely be Tortoise Island rather than La Tortue. I provide an exhaustive defense at the discussion page. Thanks for your comments. Maybe you'll consider a compromise -- Tortoise Island with redirects from Tortuga and Ile de la Tortue? Fowler Pierre 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of Crème brûlée; on http://www.coquinaria.nl/english/recipes/05.2histrecept.htm - it says

'Origin of Crème Brulée', Petits Propos Culinaires 31 (March 1989) pp.61/63, diverse auteurs. (Conclusion: The recipe is probably French in origin, but it is a mystery why Massialot later changed the name of the recipe from "crème brulée" to "crème à l'Angloise". The writers remark snarkily that the French are not known for their crediting their recipes to other countries, so ...?)

Jooler 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i guess i mixed up the usernames at a time when i was in a hurry...I apologise for accusing u and i know that u haven't contributed in that article's talk page. As far as i am concerned, i wouldn't mind see it rewritten by a Vlach,Bolivian,Sudani or whatever! But it has to be rewritten!anyway, when i'll be back from my wikibreak, i will do something about it... --Hectorian 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I will be spending very little time on Wikipedia. To contact me, use Wikipedia e-mail, not notes on my Talk page.

---

Hi Macrakis,

What's your opinion on the proposal to merge the

01:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

About that evil sub-human named Miskin

I'm sorry Macrakis but I find it hard to believe that we're simply two people who are "interested in the same articles" and always happen to find themselves in opposite sides. I've never accused you for being uncivil, and no neutral observer would ever do so. However, I do accuse you for having stalked me on several occasions, and be sure that it has been also noticed by others. Your recent actions against me include:

• reporting for a dead edit-war (and 3RR-violates fails, you try to convince the admins that I deserve a block anyway)
• clearly following me around and edit where I edit, usually of opposing content
• badmouthing me behind my back (always in an indirect, "civil" manner)
• clearly trying to get other users to share your views against me
• creating a hostile environment with supposedly pure intentions, yet without forgetting to bring up my name and evilness at least once per edit (clearly to turn others against me)
• reporting me for being supposedly a wiki-bully who harasses editors on a regular basis along with his "gang" (despite the fact I've never spoken to Avg before)
• trying systematically to entrap me and most likely wish that I get a ban
• probably other things which I've never discovered

Whether you admit it or not, all of the above falls easily under WP:STALK, [9]. I had declared to User:Inshanee some months ago that I didn't want to have anything to do with you anymore, and that eventhough I would never address you the word again, I was sure that you and Lucas would somehow manage to re-emerge with a new accusation against me and invent a problem. You initiated the first contact with me via your clearly trolling-like behaviour on Gyros, where you edited that page only because I did, and you had never made such claims about the Gyros/Doner "question" previously. I confronted you in Talk, in the civilest way I could (it wasn't easy), and while I was trying to convince myself that you were really not stalking me, "bang" you edit Greece666's talk page. My predictions had already become reality with your first two edits. However Lucas' comments and his especially ironic threat on reporting me to Inshanee, made it look as if I had been inside your heads. Finally, after discovering that you had amusingly compiled a report against my saying "You could be a leftist or an ethnic Albanian" (which in your dialect was translated as "Miskin and his buddies are attacking poor editors AGAIN because they don't agree with them"), I found that there's no point on taking any of your actions seriously. The purpose of the very last message you left at my page for instance is but a mere, gentle provocation of war, which would certainly fill you with pleasure (since you believe that you would win). You thought that I'd accept your challenge, proceed to ArbCom, where you hoped I'd be found "guilty" and eventually receive a long-term ban (and with crossed-fingers maybe even a permanent one - exacly what my Evilness deserves). And if you were lucky enough, who knows, you might have had the chance to receive an insulting reply and gather more solid accusations against me. I'm sorry Macrakis but I won't do you the favour. There's a principal reason which dwarves all other, you know what it is? The reason is that participating in such a procedure would mean having to communicate and debate with you for severals hours. This is something which I could not stand. I'd prefer to get directly a 2-month ban rather than having to confront you for longer than couple of minutes. All this time I haven't been staying away from you in order to make a point. I was doing it because I don't want to have any contacts with you, and I can't stand talking or communicating to you in any way. So eventhough my point was made today, I will continue to ignore your presence in wikipedia. If you insist on questioning the content of my edits (by claiming the exact opposite) and you invite me to discussions, I'll try to ignore your possible provocations and reply as if you were a random editor. However our dialogues will be restricted to 2-3 edits and will never be initiated by me. If after 2-3 we haven't reached to an agreement, I'll edit-war with you until a mediator shows up, in which case I'll communicate with him. Miskin 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stavro, about your recent changes to

18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Enclave

To reduce repetition,

00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource in Ancient Greek

There is an ongoing initiative to create a Wikisurce in Ancient Greek. Please provide your comments at

(T)

13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Joseph E. Yahuda and others

Hi Stavro, thanks for joining the discussion at Joseph E. Yahuda. You might be interested to see the discussion between Deucalionite and myself on our talkpages. I think there needs to be some cleanup done, but I'm trying to establish some level of cooperation with him and not giving him the impression I'm stalking him or anything. Just thought you'd like to know, as I now notice you were also involved in revising some of his work earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we might need an RfC for Deucalionite some time soon. Would you be willing to certify one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your revert in Crete ridiculous... Not only cause u did nothing to re-add the greek name in Istanbul (in this case u would seem more NPOV), but cause your reasons are not important at all! Yes, Crete was conquered by the Turks in 1669 and remained in their hands for 250 years. why don't u add the Latin and Arab name as well? it was part of the roman empire and of the arab caliphate for almost 400 and 150 years respectively. Lastly, u talk about the greek-speaking Cretan Turks... since they spoke greek, why u add the name in turkish? this is not how they used to call the island... Please, do not revert again without reasonable arguments. --Hectorian 16:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a msg here cause it was u who reverted the article. i have no problem discussing the issue in Talk:Crete or elsewhere... --Hectorian 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ada was originally targeted at embedded and real-time systems. The Ada 95 revision, designed by S. Tucker Taft of Intermetrics between 1992 and 1995, improved support for systems, numerical, and financial programming.

I know little about the target market for Ada 95. My comment referred to Ada 83.

I worked on the design of Ada at Intermetrics, ...

I also worked at Intermetrics, but on a CHILL compiler, not Ada. Derek farn 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Macrakis, we have started a peer revie of Patras to make it a FAC Wikipedia:Peer review/Patras/archive1. You have done much in the past so could you help with new ideas? Thanks, --Donnerstag 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stavro, would you be interested in commenting on a matter of (as usual, slightly ideological POV-pushing) dispute about Greek history? It's about the Souliotes, and we are having the usual ethnic disputes, about the weight of the contribution of the Albanian population element in pre-modern Epirus this time. We badly need some proper academic references, people are working on the basis of cheap patriotic history booklets from the Greek mass market... Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you once participated in discussions of when and how to include foreign placenames in Greek and Turkish geographical articles. There's now a centralised discussion at Wikipedia:Greek/Turkish naming conventions, and your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is nominated for deletion. I thought you might want to express your opinion.66.233.19.170 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen Macrakis. We might have had our arguments in the past and I am sorry if I said anything to offend you. I just don't want you to assume that what I am doing on the Arvanites article is detrimental to Wikipedia. I would really appreciate your understanding in this matter.

I know you will hear from Aldux, Telex, and Future Perfect about how much of an "original (pseudo-)researcher" I am. However, all I am doing to the Arvanites article is correcting information (with sources of course), as well as enhancing the content.

Future Perfect already critiqued the sources I placed on the article. I made certain improvements since I felt that an article deserves to contain comprehensible and sourced information. Unfortunately, certain aspects of his critiques were not necessarily constructive (they were a bit offensive). Read the Arvanites discussion page if you have the time.

No one should ever deny the fact that Future Perfect did a superb job refining the Arvanites history section. I am still amazed that he was able to have shortened such a long and very incomprehensible section to something more manageable. Seriously, he deserves a barnstar for what he has done on the Arvanites page.

What do you do if the consensus is wrong and you have failed to convince people to take your edits seriously?

I ask of you to allow me to revert the Arvanites page to the version with the sources I placed. Even if I were to discuss what I added, Aldux, Telex, and Future Perfect will not listen (Future Perfect: "From now on, I will not bother wasting my time and bloating this talk page with giving detailed reasons for any more reverts I'll have to make").

Just understand that there are strong sociological reasons for why no one should assume that the Arvanites are Albanians just because they spoke a form of Albanian. This goes for any ethnic group that speaks a foreign language.

Please respond. Deucalionite 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your response was quite repetitive ("weak and tendentious"). Not a very good tactic in convincing people to talk about what they contributed. I will try to convince the "Big Three" to understand where I am coming from. Emphasis on "try" since I doubt they would listen. Deucalionite 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I haven't. I'm not sure if I even added a comma on my own, all my edits there are reverts against what I judged as pov-pushing. For this I thought it could be hardly said I had I had edited much the article, and the case of disruption appears quite obvious. But please, explain me better your point; I also aren't sure on this issue, and a reason I made my last edit on the block on arvanites and not Deucalionite was to know if they were objections to my enacting it. If you have doubts, don't be afraid to express them: there's nothing I would hate to do more than commit a possible abuse of sysop powers, especially since I'm quite a newbie admin.--Aldux 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis, thanks for helping out at the Arvanites! Sometime I'm going to create an "Arvanite barnstar", for particularly headstrong and stubborn users... Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, with regards to my recent edit there, please see the latest thread of Talk:Pi and comment on the issue. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the wictionary link because Δημοκρατία als means Republic. Well, I guess this is not so important. Greetings,   Andreas   ^(T) 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my old proposal (from June) regarding the reorganisation of the Greek language article series has been revived and there's now again a discussion ongoing. Much of it is just an exchange of old arguments, but perhaps your renewed input will help to find the best solution. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info:). i knew somehow where it was from, but i have to admit that i did not know the later quote that u told me. honestly, i do not mind if it was ridiculing the role of Greek in the British class system... i find it a very clever quote for Greek, and that's why i have it on my page... Cheers! Hectorian 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the convention of square brackets for phonetic vs. phonemic transcriptions. It looks good now after your latest fix! Wareh 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis,

I'm afraid I had to revert your changes to

19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since most of the content from the article was about Seleucia, it's best to have the history in that article. I'll ask an admin right now. —Khoikhoi 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, check the articles now. —Khoikhoi 20:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When I looked at {{

Talk:Etymology of Istanbul or Talk:Istanbul. —Khoikhoi

21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Baklava

Hey Macrakis, I saw the new section. What do you think we should do about it? I don't think I should delete it, becuase the information if sourced, but not all the sources meet

17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: German Wikipedia

Hello Macrakis. I'm a member on German Wikipedia for quite a long time now but there a few major problems that are annoying me: For instance, its lack of neutrality: There are too many articles that contain so called weasel words. Also, some "facts" simply are not true (I don't have an specific example in mind). That was probably mainly a result of a missing function to write proper citations. Writing citations was introduced quite recently - long time after it became possible in English Wikipedia. Furthermore, there was a time when articels with average or above-average quality were blocked due to deletion processes or even got deleted. The amount of articel in German WP is heavily limited by double standard rules. Vandalism is a big problem, especially since there are no counter-vandalism tools. Summa summarum, I'd say that the German Wikipedia is like an earlier version of the English Wikipedia + more flaw. - Jack's Revenge 19:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been missing your [insert euphemism here] presence since you became apparently interested in gourme-type contributions. :-) I responded about Σαφράμπολη/Θεοδωρούπολη/Safranbolou in my talk yesterday. Which is it? Should we rename the el:wiki article? •NikoSilver• 21:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted out a link I inserted to the article on Pi. This was the version which contained it. I thought it was a different take on the transcendental number, albeit more idiosyncratic. I thought it had a place there, again, although off-beat. You reverted without discussion. Further thoughts ? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hi Macrakis. Thanks for your kind reply and explanation. I take most, if not all, of your points, but I still, in principle, thought there was some obliquely interesting connection to Pi to have inserted it in the article. All right, I go along with your sentiments and expurgation. Bests. --- (Bob) (talk)

Giati to arthro Bitola den exei to onoma tis polis se alles glosses? Eipa ston filo sas ton khoikhoi pos den to theoro dikaio kai mou apantise sarkastika. Autos apo tote pou egine admin mono to magka kserei na kanei, kai eis anotera. Miskin 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well at least this time you can't accuse me for being impolite and paranoid. Miskin 19:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ara na ypotheso pos theoreis tis dikes mou piges palies kai axristes etsi den einai? Miskin 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Diati ta parousiazeis san na mi thelo ego na ginei arthro gia tous Byzantinous? Ego apla lego pos to onoma tou arthrou prepei na syndeetai me tin elliniki istoria kai na min exei mia aprosopi morfi opos thelei ekeinos. Den eipa pote na min anaferthoun oles oi piges opos yponnoeis kai pas pali na me bgaleis ton kako tis ypothesis. Miskin 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ektos an ola auta einai idea mou. Miskin 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Kata deuteron h Britannica pou exo einai tou 2006 (agorasmeni), ara auto peri palion pigon den isxyei - antithetos deixnei tin prokatalipsi sou apenanti mou. Den eimai epithetikos, auti einai diki sou apopsi (h mallon prokatalipsi). Den gnorizo kata poso parakolouthises ti sizitisi alla oi piges tou sto syggekrimeno thema den antikatoptrizoun diolou tin apopsi tou, tis pasarei mono kai mono gia mostra, ki opos blepo polloi tsimpane to doloma. Oi dikes mou piges einai eksisou kainouries kai poly pio eutheis se auto pou theloun na poune (des ta xoria pou exo parathesei). Ki ego kanei polles "contributions" Makraki alla mono na me katakrineis ksereis. Ara den einai autos o logos gia ton opoion prospatheis synexos na me kaneis na fainomai san ilithios. Sbino tora to teleutaio sou minima apo ti selida mou epeidi gia akomi mia fora diastreuloneis ta logia kai tis protheseis mou (den se rotisa pote giati ton "kalosorises"). Den thelo i prokatalipsi sou na epireasei kapoion tyxonta anangnosti tis selidas mou. Miskin 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Allaksa gnomi tha to afiso pros to paron. Miskin 00:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An pisteueis oti katakrino tis piges tou kai oti paratheto "palies" piges, mou fainetai oti den exeis parakolouthisei tin sizitisi. Des tin enotita 'Byzantine Greeks' pou brisketai akribos pano apo tin 'Byzantine identity' (opou teleutaios egrapses). Diabase oti exo parathesei ekei kai meta pes mou an bgazo epipolaia kai lanthasmena symperismata h an basizomai se palies piges. Gia ton Paparrigopoulo den milisa pote, alla den mporo na dexto oti o Toynbee theoreitai paliatzoura. To oti exei katakrithei gia orismena pragmata de simainei pos o,ti egrapse einai kourada. An yparxei kati syggekrimeno tha to dexto, alla den dexomai tin genikeusi oti einai kseperasmenos epeidi apla den isxyei gia kapoion pou exei meinei stous megalyterous istorikous tou aionos. Miskin 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kai den ksero an to exeis paratirisei alla apofeugo pia na mpleko se diamaxes stis opoies diakyndineuo na apokalesto 'ethnikistis'. Omos otan me pnigei to dikio mou opos tora anagkazomai na pao mexri telous kai pistepse me den to euxaristiemai katholou. Diabase ti sizitisi me prosoxi Makraki kai tha katalabeis poios einai o prokatilimenos tis ypothesis. Koita ti elegan stin arxi kai ti sto telos. Arxika elegan pos to Byzantio den eixe pote, apolitos _kamia_ sxesi me ellinismo, kai afou parethesa ta xoria gia ton Eusebio kai ton Lascari, arxisan na lene pos o ellinismos emfanistike stin meta-Komninon periodo i opoia einai mikroteras simasias. Oti kai na tous bro makraki autoi tha bgazoun apo myga ksigki. Den eimai ego o prokatilimenos Makraki, skepsou monoxa gia poio logo kathontai kai asxolountai toso poly me to syggekrimeno thema pou sto kato kato tis grafis den exei kamia sxesi me tis dikes tous files. Einai idia logiki me ekeinin tou Fallmerayer Makraki: "afou kati aksilogo den einai diko mou, as min einai kanenos". Miskin 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"On the other hand, it is not a good thing to exclude other reputable and well-sourced perspectives, or to interpret sources tendentiously."
I frankly feel offended when accused about things that I never did. Next time be ready to refer to a specific event before throwing around such accusations. Read all sources I have posted (so far) and see how directly relevant they are to what I've been suggesting. Read Jarvis' sources and try to do the same. They're just citations from well-respected sources, but they never back up Jarvis' view. They are just abstractly interpreted to do so. Plus he has been mainly quoting Mango, all the rest of the "modern sources" you mentioned were a bunch of names. I can start too searching in amazon.com and go "see this and that for more information", but it won't make me be any right, nor it will prove that I've read the book. You are a reasonable person Macrakis, take some time to read the debate and you'll see what I mean.
"And I certainly don't think it is a good idea to aggressively attack and ridicule people who have different serious perspectives."
If a perspective is serious then it can never be subject to ridicule. Remember that. Miskin 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One last thing. When I used to cite Mango for the edits I made in Byzantium, Roydosan accused me for selecting the "minority views", and gradually all of my edits were removed (even direct citations with a reference next to them). But now Mango becomes suddenly the hero scholars because at some point he says that Byzantium was "not solidly a Greek state". An diabaseis kalytera tin sizitisi kai pisteis pos exo dikio, tote min distakseis gia mia fora na me ypostirikseis. Miskin 12:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Xaire Makraki, rikse mia matia sta teleutaia edits tou filous mas kai pes mou pali ti gnomi exeis gia tin "oudetairotita" tou. To xeirotero den einai pos o idios protimaei na skatosei prosorina to arthro gia na perasei to diko tou, alla oti oi ypoloipoi dexontai na to ypostoun. Miskin 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ένας τύπος στο άρθρο της Ελληνικής κουζίνας αλλάζει πάλι τα έντιτ σου. Ρίξε μια ματιά. Miskin 01:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also a 1851 work by George Finlay called "The history of Greece: From Its Conquest by the Crusaders to Its Conquest by the Turks". I think it contains the earliest mention of "Byzantine". Miskin 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Se la face ay pale, la cause est... 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now, it's because of the amazing support during my recent request for adminship and because of all those new shiny buttons. And if in the future my use of them should not always be perfect please don't hesitate to shout at me any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

--AW 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis, perhaps you could give your two cents to the Cypriot refugees article. To cut a long story short, i rewrote quite a contentious account of displaced Cypriots and find myself going round in circles with (Greek) editors asking for it to be reverted. I would appreciate if you could also cast your observation in the discussion page. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, thats not what you did Garnet, no fair play. Be honest. After you failed to delete an article, you have vandalized the contents, wrote from scratch what YOU think the article should look like, stating that it was of a “less article” because it was propoganda = (POV specific) while another editor has proved to you that what you wrote is POV specific =propaganda. Both you and your sympathizer acknowledged and accepted that. In your own words quote "My problem with Aristov's version was not just his wording, but the fact that 2/3 of the article was devoted to two Greek Cypriot demonstrations, with no explanation whatsover of the status of displaced Cypriot refugees as a whole".Unquote. as i see it; Garnets problem is the Turkish brutality evident in the pictures showing the murders of anastasios and Isaak. The reason garnet and other turkish editors attempted to delete the article to begin with. Now garnet is beating around the bush with excuses as to why he wants it deleted. But who am i to judge garnet anyway. Just have a look. oops sorry for the intrusion. All the best Aristovoul0s 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Macrakis, thanks for the reply. The problem is not so much sources (not in my case anyway, plenty of what i wrote can be sourced), but the relevance of content being placed in the article. Greek editors want to devote 2/3 of the article to a narrative of a Greek Cypriot demonstration which ended in the deaths of two protestors. I want to reduce such descriptions and focus on the problem of displaced Cypriots as a whole (including of course, Turkish Cypriots, of which there was no mention before). Of course 2 Greek Cypriots did die, and many Greeks feel angered by this. But is it encylopedic for these two deaths to dominate an article on 200,000+ displaced Cypriots, from two ethnic communities, with countless political problems in regaining their land and properties? Aristov and other Greek editors would have you think yes, even at expense of zero mention of displaced Turkish Cypriots. I on the other hand believe content should be geared not towards fleshing out instances of violence, but placing them in the context of the problem of displaced Cypriots. It is a matter of which content is more fitting to the problem, and this is what i would like your observation on, though i dont blame you for not getting involved in these disputes. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent application to use

02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right Macrakis, you're obviously better read than me on the topic. What concerns me more is whether or not the term "Cretan Turks" exists as a notion seperate to "Cretan Muslims" in the anglophone world. As far as I know "Cretan Turks" is usually an alternative of the more popular term "Cretan Muslims". The article of the former tends to become a POV-fork of the latter. In other words, it's yet to be proved that modern Turkish nationals who claim heritage from Muslim Cretans are known in English as "Cretan Turks". Miskin 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who added a reference of Perry's article. I did it because the user Nareklm was doubtful with the sentence. So, I felt the necessity of adding the reference to be associated with the sentence. In fact it doesn't do any harm for my reference link to remain there or not, because, as you know, there is already a full reference of it below the article. --Chapultepec 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very true most sources or books that say baklava originated from Greeks are from cook books im Armenian but i have some family who were born in Greece but thats not the question there are many sources stating it also originated from Assyrians or others but stating it is ultimately of central Asian Turkic origin is bogus please if i even wrote anything like that people will start reverting my edits and calling it POV since no where in books it says that it is "ultimately" of ......

19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is his source only credible?

Nareklm

20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i am of the understanding that some do and some dont. change the passage if you like. not an issue i want to fight about. Anlace 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for correcting me, I didn't know that foodstuff was to be used in a formal context, but I do now. —The preceding

) 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Hrisi Avgi

This message is being sent to some of the active users listed on

Steel

21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Smithfieldfoods.gif

Thanks for uploading

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)