User talk:Michalis Famelis/Archive 1

I'll help with the Junta if you'll help with: User:Jpbrenna/Greece & WWII

We also need to clean-up George Papadopoulos, and add more details about his activities. For instance, which collaborationist battalion was he involved in? The Poulos Verband? Was it under actual German command or was it under the Greek collaborationist government? (Some units were under both, at varying points in their history, I believe).

I really like your pictures on the junta page, but do they conform to Wikipedia's copyright policy? If they do, keep them - but move them to Wikimedia Commons. That way they can be used easily in foreign-language articles (like the Greek -- is there a Greek article yet?)--Jpbrenna 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Better? --Jpbrenna 08:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your "New Sections" bar is redirecting to my talkpage ;)

yup! better! and... woooooops!!!!!! fixed it (actually i cut and pasted the thing from your talk page and, apparently, i didn't do it right! :blush:)

Isn't that map pre-1943? After Italy was knocked out of the war, the Germans took over all of mainland Greece. I don't know the details, but I know that the German South Greece Command (or something like that) was headquartered in Argos. I hate to impose, but if you can get the information and add a map of the changed post-193 situation, that would be great. I can find the information at the library, but I'm terrible with the GIMP. --Jpbrenna 01:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you say is correct. The map shows the very initial splitting of Greece between the occupying powers. It is only natural that after Italy switched sides (see Corelli and the story ;)) the occupation changed hands. So you say you can provide the info. I would be happy to make a new map. Only one thing: it might just require turning the cyan parts be to red! One more thng, I'm leaving on a vacation (Skiathos get ready for me!) and I will be gone a while, maybe we can do this in August? --Michalis Famelis 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i'm user from german Wiki, and would like to use some of your pictures in this article, but problem is, for german-Wiki I need a licencs for it. If there is no, they will delete it, asap. Hope, you can help me with this problem. Best regards ERWEH --82.83.172.37 13:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the phoenix emblem at the top of the article with the back of the 1 drachma coin of 1973. It's a coin, so I uploaded it as Public Domain. I think you can use that as PD. As for the other photos in the article, I can only say that their copyright status is unknown to me. The greek internet sites rarely give a copyright status to images of events so old. I believe though you could claim fair use. See here:

. Also you could try to hunt down historical photographic archives online. Consider [www.ana.gr],[www.mpa.gr] for instance, although I haven't managed to find anything (not that I researched too much...). Michalis Famelis 13:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Greek military junta of 1967-1974[reply]

Thank you, very much. I try to use it under („public domain“). Will see what happens.ERWEH - --82.83.171.31 20:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change "Order of Honor" to "Order of Honour" to follow the British spelling that seems to be favored in Greece. When I originally started the articles, I was just reading a Greek website and translating them without a dictionary or grammar (which made for some interesting mistakes until I double-checked my work), and I didn't know the official English-language names. For instance, I originally started the "Order of the Redeemer" article "Order of the Savior," but I later moved it. Thanks to myriobiblos.org and Google, I was able to get the correct chapter and verse for the Biblical passage. The hardest part was the Argos proclamation, which my friend Evangelia helped me with. Please don't read my original translation attempt in the edit history, because it is very embarassing ;)

I don't think we need the disambiguation "(Greek medal)" except in the case of the Order of the Phoenix. --Jpbrenna 16:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, we should keep the disambiguations. I would imagine that other nations might also have a medal whose name translates as Order of Honour. Distinguished Service Cross disimabiguates between the USA and UK versions, by saying (USA) or (UK). Order of Honour (Greece) looks a little better to me than "Greek medal," but I guess we should stick with the pattern begun by Order of the Phoenix (Greek medal). I'm going to redirect my Order of Honor stub to your far superior creation --Jpbrenna 16:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michalis. I'm LiniShu, and I occasionally edit articles about the history of Greece in the 20th century or about the former royal family of Greece. I've posted a reply to the question that you posed on Talk:Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece regarding the title of the article. I first saw your question a few days ago, but I wanted to take time to give a carefully considered reply. Cheers, LiniShu 13:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that you are either Greek Wikipedian or a Wikipedian living in/with an interest in Greece.

The category page

to your user page.

A

]

Thank you a lot, Damac, I did as you requested. Looking forward to use the

Wikipedia:Greek Wikipedians' notice board as a base of operations! Michalis Famelis 16:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

student uprising 1973

I don't have any research data exactly, but I am an American who was a US Navy dependent wife living in Athens when the Polytechnic uprising occurred. And since I was there, although not directly involved in the uprising (just got caught in some of the crossfire) my perspective is quite different from what has been presented on the pages. I would like to share with you what my experience was, and perhaps it could lead to some further illumination of what really happened during that month or 2. (It wasn't all over in 2-3 days, as the story indicates) And there were many more killed than the numbers listed, although I have no evidence of this. I personally saw beatings and shooting by police and army at the Polytechnic when I took a friend to deliver food to her brother who was a participant in the uprising. Her name was Litha and his was Vagellis. I no longer recall last names, but could probably find out from some old friends. She came to New York to attend college in the mid to late 1970s.

The question that has always haunted me is why the US government totally ignored the entire situation in spite of the fact that the 6th fleet was anchored at Elyfsis and the AirForce base was fully manned and operational. The American press did not even report the uprising. As I was only 21 at the time, my parents watched carefully for some news of what I had written to them once mail service was restored, and only a short virtually nondescript article from UPS showed up buried in the back pages of the newspapers. It was never even mentioned on television here.

I am still haunted by what I saw, and that was 32 years ago. I chose your user name from the discussion page because of the passion you wrote with in the wording of several of the sections (although they were changed from your original wording). From this I came to think that you must believe somewhat strongly in presenting the material accurately and as completely as possible.

Please let me know if you have any interest in hearing my version of some of the events.Judy MixaelBoda 05:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on your talk page. --Michalis Famelis 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Γειά σου Μιχάλη (άραγε διαβάζονται τα ελληνικά εδώ;), είδα το άρθρο για τους Εθνικούς δρυμούς και έχουμε προβληματάκι, αν θες μπορεις να δεις τη λίστα των εθνικών δρυμών που έχω κάνει στην ελληνική wikipedia στο λήμμα "Εθνικός δρυμός". Το Παναχαϊκό δεν υπήρξε ποτέ εθνικός δρυμός. fefeli 10:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ευχαριστώ πολύ για τη διόρθωση, fefeli! :-) Μιχάλης Φαμέλης 15:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey i left you a message in the discussion. seriously though, relax for a bit. I know you're not doing it on purpose but some of things you are writing are getting out of line. Thanks.--Antispammer 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind note Michalis. I truly think that, Turks and Greeks, Greeks and Turks, instead of grabbing at each other's necks for every little detail (we love discussions of course:), we should concentrate on preserving our respective heritages for future generations, act in a constructive way. Because, otherwise... (I have read the note someone sent you on 1963 Athens Polytechnic events, and strange as it might seem, I will tell something to add a detail on that.)...-I lived for years in Belgium. I had this Belgian girlfriend. One day, we went to her house. I start a conversation with her father. And her father had very good knowledge of Turkey. I ask how. He says he was based in Athens in the seventies for his job. And I learned that his 'job' was to sell arms. And he had done good business with the Greece of the Colonels, and with this side of the Aegean as well. Later, I talk about it with her daughter. She remembered having skipped over dead bodies in the street in Athens when she was 7-8 years old, while going to the school. I was disgusted. 'Killed by the arms your father sold' I said.). This is a true story (if you want the name:), I can give it:), she is no longer a girlfriend anyway:)...But the conclusion I will draw is that, we should stop enriching arms traders of other countries and live in good neighborly friendship. You should have seen the house that b...d had bought for himself. --Cretanforever 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

52 δις για όπλα παιδιά... 52 δις... Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 06:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Μου την έπεσαν στο

]

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will think and talk about your idea (which sounds terrific to me) and get back to you Michalis. It can only be a group effort. My name is Ali by the way. (okay, in more detail, I have two names, the first names in Turkey are often given in memory of a grandfather etc. and second name is used more often in daily life -mine is Bektaş- But in Europe I use Ali for practical reasons.) --Cretanforever 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yasou Michali - I think that is an excellent idea. I have recently taken

]

By the way, the last time I looked, there was no article on the Junta general Ioannides, which there should be. Adam 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further by the way, perhaps you could conduct a little seminar for Greek Wikipedians about how to write in an NPOV way, explaining that Wikiepedia is not the place to pursue vendettas against the Gluckbergs, the Papandreous or the Ottomans. Greek-topic articles seem to attract swarms of editors who want to write irrelevant polemic (see recent edits at Ottoman Greece and Constantine II of Greece). It is very tiresome. Adam 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...but so does "from each according to his means...," etc. Often such ideals are hard to put into practice, but good luck! Let me know how I can help. --Jpbrenna 06:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks gia ta logia sou gia tin Kozani.Se perimenoume...(dokimase na ertheis tetoia periodo pou xionizei edw kai 2 meres i fysika tis apokries...)..by the way kali eksetastiki!!!--Makedonas 16:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Επειδή δεν καταλαβαίνω το σχόλιό σου, σε παρακαλώ εξήγησέ μου τη θέση σου.

Μήπως κάνω λάθος που υπερασπίζομαι την Ελληνικότητα του ονόματος και του Μεγαλέξανδρου? Εγώ δεν είπα ποτέ να μην αναφέρονται σε αυτά. Αυτό που είπα είναι να μην τα οικειοποιούνται ως δικά τους, ως προγόνους τους και ως σύμβολά τους.

Επίσης, αυτό δεν το έκανα επέιδή έτσι μου ήρθε, το έκανα γιατί εκείνοι το έθεσαν. Είναι άλλο θέμα να αναγνωρίζεις οτι στον τόπο που ζείς έζησε κάποτε ένας Έλλην κοσμοκράτωρ και άλλο να λές οτι κατάγεσαι από αυτόν, οτιδήποτε προσμίξεις και αν έχουν γίνει. Απο τις προσμίξεις, μπορεί πράγματι εσύ και εγώ να μην είμαστε Έλληνες 3000 ετών, πιθανόν δε, η γιαγιά κάποιου από εκείνους να ήταν βέρα Ελληνίδα. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει οτι ο Μεγαλέξανδρος ήταν Σλάβος. Έτσι δεν είναι?

Σαφώς και τα σύνορα είναι μοντέρνα εφεύρεση, αλλά, άλλο τα σύνορα και άλλο η ιστορία των ανθρώπων που ζούσαν μέσα σε αυτά.

Προσωπικά, είμαι περήφανος που κατάγομαι (αν κατάγομαι) από αυτούς τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες. Είμαι περήφανος που έχω Ελληνική παιδεία, που ομιλώ Ελληνικά και που ζώ στην Ελλάδα. Αν κάποιος θα ήθελε να μοιραστεί αυτή την περηφάνια μαζί μου, καλό θα ήταν να αναγνωρίσει οτι ξεκίνησε από κάποιους που αυτοαποκαλούντο Έλληνες. Οτιδήποτε άλλο είναι απλά διαστρεύλωση της ιστορίας, ανεξάρτητα από το αν αυτή η ιστορία ανήκει πλήρως στον προσμιγμένο Ελληνικό λαό, ή σε κάποιους μετανάστες που μπορεί να αφομοιώθηκαν αλλού.

Δεν θέλω να σε κουράσω, καλή εξεταστική! NikoSilver 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Εν τοιαύτει περιπτώσει, θεωρώ οτι πρέπει να διατυπώσεις την άποψη αυτή στο ίδιο σημείο που κατέθεσες το σχόλιό σου, ωστε να καταλάβουν οι φίλοι μας οτι δεν πιστεύεις αυτά που υποστηρίζουν, απλά θα το θεωρούσες λογικό και πρέπον να αναγνωρίσουν την Ελληνικότητα των συμβόλων που τώρα διεκδικούν. Παρεπιπτώντος θα συμφωνούσα κι εγώ με το Βόρεια ή καλύτερα με το Σλάβο- αν γινόταν (έχουν πρόβλημα με τους Αλβανούς σ'αυτό).

Η μάχη όμως αυτή ξεκίνησε, όταν έγραψα οτι θα ήμουν διατεθειμένος να δεχθώ μια τέτοια λύση, σε έναν τύπο από την άλλη πλευρά, με την προΰπόθεση οτι θα ανάγνώριζαν την Ελληνικότητα του ονόματος και του Μεγαλέξανδρου. Εκείνος, ούτε λίγο ούτε πολύ, μου απάντησε οτι του ζητώ να αποκυρήξει όλα εκείνα που πιστεύει!! Διάβασέ το λίγο πιο πάνω για να με πιστέψεις! (ψάξε για "USA example")

Τί κάνουμε? Τον αφήνουμε έτσι, να νομίζει οτι υπάρχουν κάποιοι από εμάς που αλληλοτρώγονται για μικρο-ιδεολογικές τοποθετήσεις και παραγνωρίζουν το όποιο εθνικό συμφέρον τους ή τους τη λέμε όλοι μαζί?

Αναμένοντας εναγωνίως --NikoSilver 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you keep an eye on Battle of Sarikamish. It's being vandalised. Thanks. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erdalfirinci has reverted again. --Khoikhoi 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second revert from me. Hasn't he broken 3RR?? --Michalis Famelis 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GREEK POV ABUSE

Delirium has aided others are Hijacking Wikipedia and Abusing Powers to promote a Greek POV all across any Turkish related articles

• Other perpertrators and vandals include (and yes administrators can be vandals too with secret agendas)
• Sysin and as User:Globo
• Delirium
• Latinus et al
• Michalis Famelis

All these 'people' have their dirty fingers in tankering with any Turkish related articles tryng to create a racially motivated bias against Turks. And getting such a biased and incorrect and inconclusive article as the Istanbul pogrom as a feature article at Wikipedia merely proves how many of these people there are hijacking Wikipedia.

Here is Latinus asking Damac at his talk page whether they could "get away" with deleting some pro-Turkish sites.

Sysin has attempted to change the articles on Greek genocides agains Western Thrace minorities.

Globo likes to reword Turkish genocide by Greeks as uprisings - but when Istanbul pogrom is written it becomes a featured article. [1]

Michalis pretends to be so moderate, when he is acting as their voice of reason - in a good cop bad cop routine. He actually defending Damac when his "research" on the pogrom and his usage of a Turkish source was actually MISREPRESENTED AND FALSE.

DELIURIUM SAYS THAT HE HAD "READ SOMEWHERE" that sources quoted it as ITSANBUL POGROM before WIKIPEDIA WAS USED AS AN ORIGINAL SOURCE AND HAS NOW INFILRATED THE SERACH ENGINES? REALLY DELIRIUM? QUOTE US YOUR SOURCES.

These people and their contribitions should be checked and observed closely.

LATINUS HAS ALREADY TAKEN THIS OF HIS TALK PAGE? I WONDER WHY? 62.177.208.126 21:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Hi. Good Luck in your exams! I am adding this to your talkpage too as you seem level-headed and intelligent.

I am making some suggestions for amendments to this article - and as such have not carried them out yet. After Damac's motives were questioned about the writing of this article (I added the title below to section off my talk) I suggest it is a relevant article - but needs amendments because it has been written in a subjective point of view (even if he says he has no axe to grind). He obviously has sympathies with certain groups - which is natural - if you check his user page.

1. Firstly it should be made clear on the article that that not only its neutrality but its facts are disputed too - so I would add totallydisputed in place of NPOV.

2. Secondly I would add as a note on the article that word pogrom was used as a concious decision by the writer himself (even though this seemingly goes against using wikipeadia as an original source in that he is putting his own slant on his research - yes the definition Wikipedia holds of a pogrom might with argument catch this in its net - but what do all the sources say) and that both Greek sources and Turkish sources and English ones for that matter do not use the word pogrom. We must not forget that this article might be used by people as verifiable sources - so merely adding the reason in a talk page is not sufficent in my opinon.

3. Thirdly it has to be put in historical context, that goverment of 1955 was close to fascisim in the sense that Arabic was also outlawed and that the religion was trying to be reformed - with the "call to prayer" in mosques sung in Turkish. But the government was a response BY THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED THEM IN to international events around them - and one can also assume that Greek provocation from Athens (as in Cyprus) was rife. What was Athens situation like in 1955?

4. Fourthly, both sides of the events must be told. Unfounded accusations have been made against the Orthodox Church I feel, and these need to be cleared up.

5. Fifth point - Using Mehemt Ali Birand's article as a "source" for everything said above is obviously misleading when M.A Birand does not mention any deaths or casualities. I believe in Damac's good intention in that he did not intendingly mislead. I think it just shows that he came to this article he wanted to create with a certain point of view and just found evidence to back it up. I am going to guess (and forgive me if I am wrong) but he probably didnt't even read M.A. Brand's article and just thought the initial paragraph was enough - if you follow the link you'll see that you have to be a member to read the full article.

But once these are cleared up this could become a strong article to help inform and educate bothsides. 82.145.231.132 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damac's motives questioned

Istanbul Pogrom TO BE RE-WRITTEN

I am afraid the user Damac is a lier as he is Greek and does have a Greek POV. This article is full of lies and propaganda and the usage of the word pogrom is used to incite racial hatred. peopel should not use Wikipedia for there own racial sensitivities. Wikipedia is not here for such hooliganism. Though as more Greeks inflitrate the international satge - such as tennis - even hooliganism will become prevalent there. I will do my own objective research on this issue and changes will be made. I take serious issue with many disputed events that are being recorded here as historical FACT. Or apart from "not being" a Greek is Damac a learned historian, too?

I will also bring forth reasons for the riots, which are not made clear, such as retaliations for the Greek governmental perscution of Thrace Turks, where they cannot praticse their religion, women kidnapped, raped and forced to change their names and religion [2].

Greece has been taken many time to the European court of human rights on this matter. I will prepare an article on these issues. It is time that the truth really was written.

I am sick to death when people hijack Wikipedia for their own bigotry and prejudices.

Enough is enough. 82.145.231.79 03:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek POV

Damac says:

I did not respond to Latinus' request to have the articles on the massacres of Turks in Greece deleted because I believe and know that massacres took place. In fact, I have been planning to write about these incidents. --Damac 11:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely this proves the agenda of Latinus and that there are ADMINISTRATORS actually defending filth like him. Now people should realise why I have lost faith in Wikipedia - people who dress up lies that sound like truth and walk the line and do things in the rules cam just about write what they want - and once on Wikipedia they are creating their own history for ulterior motives. My second posting for listing these users was initially because of Latinus' request to have these articles speedily deleted. Blue sea 23:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please report me Micky - the more complaints the better I am heard. But I see when User:Sysin does it to me you stay quiet? Where is your O I am so neutral demeanour now? Blue sea 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to all the above

A conversation with

]

Hi Michalis!

Thank you so much for the kind words, dear Michalis :) It is a pleasure and a personal flattery that you liked the design so much to use it yourself, and thanks so much for crediting me - hat's a lovely gesture. I see that you enhanced it a lot yourself - beautiful, and well done! It gives me great new ideas too ;) Please, drop by my talk page any time you want, even if you simply wanna say hi. Kisses! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ωραίες και μελετημένες παρεμβάσεις.Politis 13:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michalis for the interesting question. I'll give more thought to it and give you a longer reply. The general point I think is that nobility had with it the possession of political or military power. Status and inheritance came via a title. In modern society, political or military power as of right of inheritance in terms of nobility is long gone. All that remains are the remnants in the form of titles. The state undoubtedly has the right to remove inherited power. Arguably it has the right to abolish titles. However it avoids using the latter power because devoid of membership of hereditary houses of parliament or military posts titles of nobility are meaningless anacronisms that simply exist as a form of ghost from the past. States generally avoid abolishing titles but instead keep them strictly regulated because they know that their abolition won't stop them. At best, the state would end up with egg on its face when it was shown that it couldn't force their abolition. At worst, numerous people would then set themselves up as claimants to such titles, and you'd have an embarrassing public rangle over who was Duke of X or Earl of Y.

So states seem for the most part to follow the simple rule: you have no power. If you want to still call yourself Duke of Wikipedia, fine. At least it stops us having a host of people calling themselves that, getting into public squabbles and legal cases.

As to the origins of this tradition of allowing ex-royal families to continue to have titles, that seems to be a de-facto tradition that everyone follows because everyone else does it. No-one stands up to say "hold on a minute. This is silly" because you'd cause a row that would make you look petty and waste your time on a non-issue. The tradition probably arose in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries when monarchs began getting overthrown in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Society saw monarchy as the natural order of things. In any case, this year's ex-king could well be king again next year. So why offend someone who might come back to power later by attacking the titles of his children.

Republics really only became in vogue in Europe after World War I. Even then no-one knew if deposed monarchs were gone for good or whether 1917-1919 was going to be like 1848, ie shortlived republics followed by royal restorations. So everyone called the ex-royals by title just in case. After World War II, deposed Eastern European monarchs were often the only prominent people from the state available as rivals to communist regimes. So people saw no reason in attacking Michael of Romania or Simeon II of Bulgaria when they could be presented as the good guys overthrown by that nasty Mr. Stalin. Nowadays stripping royalty of titles is (a) not worth the hassle, and (b) always counter-productive. The case of Constantine II was a classic example. Constantine is, frankly, a berk. His incompetent meddling in politics in the 1960s caused the crisis that led to the coup. Few people had any sympathy with him until the Socialist government stripped him off his citizenship. Their actions achieved the previously unimaginable: sympathy for Constantine. They were seen as bullies attacking someone below the belt. It backfired spectacularly on them.

Governments internationally (as I learnt from reading state files on the issue in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs) seem to have stumbled into a tradition of "leave things as they are" with titles. No-one wants to hassle of doing anything about it. As far as they are concerned, it isn't worth the effort. As that is how Washington, Paris, Dublin et al does it, Wikipedia has to follow the precedent, as our job is to report the situation under NPOV, not decide to change it, which would be POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, BTW, the best of luck with the exams. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/Play/rheta.html

It relates to your Greek-Turkish cooperation project. Good luck with your exams! --Joe 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe, it was the first time I saw a Makrygiannis quote in English! -Michalis Famelis 11:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gia su, Michali. Some one started an article entitled Arvanite Alliance and claims it is a party for the "Albanian minority" in Greece. I never heard of it and doubt it exists. Do you know anything about it?--Damac 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. User:Arianitr originally named it Arvanite Aliance (sic) and included it on the List of political parties in Greece. When I removed it, he added it again. I asked Arianitr to provide more info but he has remained silent.

The same user has also created Arvanite_flag and Image:Arvanite Flag.GIF, which he indicates he got from (ΑΡΒΑΝΙΤΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ ... www.arvasynel.gr ). This organisation is certainly not what he thinks it is. Ti tha kanoume;--Damac 12:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Michaeli,

I'm aware you've written quite a bit on the Greek military dictatorship. I've just completed a list of all Greek

]

Uzbek SSR anthem

Sorry, I removed the English machine "translation". It's really bad, lots of words aren't even translated, they're just transliterated. I don't have the time to do a proper manual translation, but the version that was in the article simply didn't belong. -- Curps 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to the version before my edits. I am a little flustered that this article needs expansion but no one wants to improve on a the "supposed POV statement" and use the English language to turn it into something non-POVish. I would like some more help but here but no one is willing...all it is up until now is revert instead of edit/revise. I appologise for any problems this may have caused though.(UNFanatic 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Revolution within the form and Cretan/Spartan connection is up for deletion. I ask for a vote to transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you on your talk page but I would like to point your attention to the article on Constantine II of Greece. Far from remaining on the dispute over the relevance of his ancestry, Adam Carr has procceded to remove biographical information from the page.

In particular he has reduced all events relating to the Apostasia of 1965, the political crisis of 1965-1967 and events leading to the dictatorship to a single paragraph. Those are the events that make Constantine relevant to Greek history and the main reason he is remembered by the public.

He has also removed both material and links relevant to the dictatorship of 1967 - 1974 under the explanation of "unecessary political details from 1960s". Along with the paragraph on how recent and current Greek press covers references to Constantine. Unter the pretence of NPOV. I thought we were supposed to present the POV of others and the NPOV involves only our personal views.

I have reverted him this far but he has proceeded to reverted the article back to his version. Any chance of you providing a third opinion? User:Dimadick

I would welcome this also. I hope your exams are going well. Adam 10:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Trio.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Famelis,

When you write "some people, which some people, who some people? Unless a citation is given I will remove this as POV editorializing", you might give other editors a chance to provide such a citation before you act. "Will remove" is a future tense in English. When you wrote this, you had actually already removed the passage. Noel S McFerran 08:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a change to the first paragraph by someone who added the sentence "International precedent is that former holders of certain posts continue to hold their former title as a courtesy title in their lifetime." I think this made things worse. The current version says who specifically gives Anne-Marie a royal title (royal courts) and who doesn't (the Greek constitution). I hope that this shows that I am not interested in promoting a monarchist agenda, but in presenting the various viewpoints neutrally. Noel S McFerran 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me. --Michalis Famelis 19:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're right. I'm terribly sorry. It was all in good faith. I had some spare time *last* night and turned the mess around. I guess I went a little *too* far this time. At any rate, I am very glad that some people (like you) are taking the time to discuss options rather than unilaterally reverting everything. Charles 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't offend easily, to be honest, so no need to worry there. Sometimes playing the smartass card brings out a lot of good points. I know these things get a little heated and everyone gets a kick out of a little stab here and there, but at the end of the day, we have to present all sides of an issue and follow the precedent already laid out for us. I'm all for playing the devil's advocate, but I don't tolerate unilateral edits like Aleksandar's. Charles 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Athens_law_school_students_1973.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. There is still a lot of work to do, but at least now the article is not a stub. Jkelly 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mike, good job with the edit, you should have dropped a note before i launched my polemic :"Calm down you crazy dumb-dumb!" ;) Project2501a 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michaelis, thanks for moving the sections round in

]

Hey Mike

No, you pinko plotter!! The red army DIDN'T WIN in the article about the American Siberian force article which you claim!!! They won the Civil War agianst the whites!!! What kind of nutjob are you. 15,000 men just holding a railroad is a loss?! Dam, there are a lot of traitors out there!! I guess meriam coopers American Air Force Squadron that fought in the polish soviet war (pinko's lost) was a american victory, right? Since they helped defeat Budonny's calvery! And, by the way, I noticed your Greek. Who won the civil war there? Did the your comrades loose? And who helped the 'enemy' win that one? HAHAHA! yankeeroman (24.75.194.50 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC))