User talk:Telex


Welcome to my talk page If you want to leave me a message, please click here. Please sign with ~~~~. Because normally I will reply here, please watch the page. I may delete posts I believe are written maliciously. If you edit this page, I'll assume you're accepting that.	Καλωσορίσατε στη σελίδα συζητήσεών μου Αν θέλετε να μου αφήσετε μήνυμα, κάντε κλικ εδώ. Παρακαλώ, υπογράψτε με ~~~~. Επειδή κανονικά θα απαντήσω εδώ, παρακαλώ παρακολουθήστε τη σελίδα. Μπορεί να διαγράψω μηνύματα που πιστεύω έχουν γραφτεί κακοπροαίρετα. Αν τροποποιήσετε αυτή τη σελίδα, θα υποθέσω ότι το δέχεστε αυτό.	Mirësevini në faqen time e diskutimeve Nëse doni të më leni një mesazh, ju lutem klikoni këtu. Ju lutem nënshkruani me ~~~~. Sepse normalisht do të përgjigjem këtu, ju lutem shikoni faqen. Mund të shuaj mesazhë që besoj janë shkruarë me qëllim të keq. Nëse redaktoni këtë faqe, do të pandeh që pranoni atë.

archive/αρχείο/arkivë

Arvanitic

I was wondering, how many days exactly did it took for the first Greek Parliament, to choose between Albanian and Greek as the official language? greier 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek parliament had no say in it. The Greek Orthodox Church called the shots. --Tēlex 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it`s true? How come this doesn`t appear on the Greece or History of modern Greece or Greek language or Modern Greek articles? greier 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what's true exactly? It's a commonly accepted fact that the Greek Orthodox Church was behind the uprising against the Ottoman Empire. It all (allegedly) started in hidden schools known as the krifa scholia. Do you doubt that the Greek Orthodox Church preferred Greek to Aromanian, Arvanitic etc? Arvanitic had no chance of being the only official language, but it could have been a co-official language, at first at least, because the Greek state initially spanned the traditionally Arvanitic speaking areas. Note that most Arvanites were bilingual whereas most Greeks proper knew only Greek. There was no realistic chance of Greek, the language spoken and understood by everyone, not being official, whereas a language only spoken by part of the population being official. --Tēlex 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cover-up, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See it this way. Greek had a written form, Arvanitic did not. --Tēlex 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, ok then! I`ll add this: that Greek was choosed as the official state language instead of Albanian, because it had a written form, and Albanian didn`t. greier 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, greier, you need your irony meter readjusted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I wonder, I`m bashed... When I say that I understand, I get bashed again... Anyway, where should I put this info? In Arvanitic language, Modern Greek, History of modern Greece or which article? greier 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere, because it's unsourced Arvanite POV. --Tēlex 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm thinking that the only way of getting that Arvanites article stabilized in the long run is to get it to featured-article status. Want to share your ideas? I've been in contact with Matia off-wiki discussing a few things - first want to have a consensus in place about the politically sensitive wording things and then tackle the rest. In these special circumstances I think some private off-wiki "negotiations" between the principal interested parties is legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm easy going. As far as I'm concerned, the article should make unambiguously clear that Arvanitika is a form of Albanian and that the Arvanites self-identity as Greeks (if anyone doubts these, I can adduce evidence for both). I also dislike POV tags on the basis that a) they uglify the article, and b) the readers ignore them anyway. Regarding anything else, I'll just go with consensus. --Tēlex 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. I'll see to it that we keep you informed. By the way, I've decided not to get involved in the petty reverts this time, I will neither enforce or oppose the tag at the present state of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The delightful Bonaparte

I blocked the IP. - FrancisTyers · 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telex, sorry, but i totally disagree. if the greek names will be removed, i will remove the turkish as well. instead of insisting in adding the turkish names in western thraki, why don't u add the greek in eastern as well? (Poli included). This would be NPOV. i am not asking u to remove the turkish but add the greek! i am simply calling for neutrality... --Hectorian 14:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done that quite a few times already. Someone always keeps reverting me though. --Tēlex 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your efforts. well, it is hard to achive NPOV. i will help in this. but, as i said, no double standards... either both greek and turkish, or just greek or turkish. --Hectorian 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telex, I m very pleased that finally after all these reverts you as well as Hectorian understand that it is very important as well as NPOV to include the Greek name on Istanbul article, if we want to include any Turkish name on Alexandroupoli or Xanthi. However the minute they revert again the Greek name I ll start erasing every Turkish naming from all Greek articles.Thank you.Mywayyy 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mywayyy, don't. First, these edit wars are harmful no matter what the merits of the case are, and if you persist I'm going to press to get you indef-blocked. (Your block evasion through anon IPs should by rights have gotten you at least a week by now anyway.) And as for content, you should have noticed by now that with Istanbul/Constantinople we have the naming issue not merely in the intro sentence but actually in a separate article of its own. It's already there, dammit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul

Can you explain why do you feel the need to put the Greek name in the introduction? DeliDumrul 14:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please kind enough to explain yourself? Why do we need to include the names in the other languages anyways? All governments in the world use Istanbul when corresponding in English, so as all the English media. I don't see any point in including any other names in the main article, as there is already another article on other names of Istanbul and a link to that article in the main article. I would understand inclusion of the Turkish alphabet version (but i don't find it crucial), because that would be what you see when you go to the city. DeliDumrul 15:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iancu

It`s clear that you reverted not because you actually knew what it was all about, but because it was me. Simple as that. You went to history, saw my edit and, without knowing what it was all about, you reverted because I`m a nationalist... So I don`t need your "compasion", as my opinion of you, formed a long time ago, doesn`t allow such acts from people like you or Khoikhoi... greier

Telex, I think the category created by Greier was an (unwittingly?) good compromise. I believe it could serve as a subcat for Hungarian soldiers, and it would be a good piece of subcategorizing for that matter. I'm trying to find a solution here, and I certainly think the cat:Romanian soldiers is a major exaggeration (and walks all over guidelines which point out that Pushkin should not be referred to as an "Ethiopian poet"). In fact, I'm willing to bet that, if Hungarians would show any care in categorizing (so far, they're one of the messiest communities in that area), this subcat would pop up on its own. Again, from my point of view, this is not minimizing his status as a Hungarian: it is establishing period and accuracy. Think about it, and please answer on my talk page. Thanks. Dahn 19:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be a subcat. I mean, "Hungarian" in this context means "of Hungary" (and I cannot think of a closer connection to Hungary than being its soldier...). At the same time, "Kingdom of..." would act as a more accurate category per period - and all questions of different nationalities, the usual lack of fundament ethnicity had in the period, the value of being "a subject of" and "a noble of", would all be alluded to by the "Kingdom of" particle in the cat title. I think this would be by far the best solution. Dahn 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It`s weird to see Hunyadi in the same category with Miklós Horthy... greier 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... nad Pirina plameney...

Hi! You might like to take a look at the newly-non-redirected Pirin Macedonia article and share your thoughts whether we need it as a separate article from Blagoevgrad Province. I for one think we should merge the new info from Pirin Macedonia in Blagoevgrad Province and re-redirect it back to where it belongs. Not to mention it could become sort of a craddle of Macedonism if the hounds get wind of it. Todor →Bozhinov 15:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what we did when a POV fork was created for Aegean Macedonia [1] and Solun [2]. That's why you must watch the redirects - Macedonism is getting out of control. --Tēlex 15:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“

Aegean Macedonia is another name for Belomorska Trakia

”

LOL, didn't know that :) Todor →Bozhinov 15:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect; I remember seeing User:VMORO pointing that out somewhere. --Tēlex 15:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an absolute confusion of historical regions — Aegean (Belomorska) Thrace is the northern Aegean coast of Greece and European Turkey, and Aegean Macedonia is clearly Greek Macedonia. The border between the two regions is the Mesta (Nestos) River AFAIK. Todor →Bozhinov 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Macedonian isn't Bulgarian after all (at least thats what I think it says) — maybe I'm wrong? - FrancisTyers · 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Skopje, where you can get away with straw man arguments. That article will need to be converted into the Bulgarian alphabet out of the custom made alphabet for the "Macedonian" language. Frankly, I'm rather surprised you thought that you could get away with posting a text in the "Macedonian" alphabet on bgwiki - that would be like posting an article from srwiki in Cyrillic on hrwiki, or a Hindi article on the Urdu Wikipedia. --Tēlex 22:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't particularly making an argument. I was making an amusing observation. Sorry you didn't get it. First analogy valid, second analogy not. Incidentally my point was that instead of fix the article (which they appear to be lacking) by fixing a few spellings they would prefer to delete it. I mean, its an article about an African capital city, how Macedonian POV can it be? Damn, it really is a shame you didn't get it :/ - FrancisTyers · 23:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. --Tēlex 23:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Souliotes

Hi, could you folks please help and keep an eye on the Souliotes article? It seems like just when we are close to pacifying the Arvanites for good, some people are determined to open up the same old story on other articles, doggedly trying to minimize all references to the ethnic Albanian contribution to the Greek nation at all costs. One user, User:Sshadow goes as far as to claim that prior to 1913(!) no Albanians even existed... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you eliminate Country designations

refering to: [3] The historical periods of the city Istanbul were based on state designations, which were classified on the empires ore states that ruled the city; They are not based on the language such as "period of Istanbul"; or Istanbul period; Don't you think this naming wars are becoming really absurde? Please revert your changes. Thnks--OttomanReference 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have! I accidentally reverted to an earlier version, and within a minute, reverted myself. In effect, my modification can be seen here, as you would be aware had you have looked carefully at the page history before accusing. --Tēlex 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kastoria et al.

Sorry, I just realized now that the articles had name sections. —Khoikhoi 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An twra ton xanapw anthellina i kati xeirotero, egw tha ftaiw?!!! epeidi den mporei na perasei tis idees tou, epitithetai se arthra pou aforoun tin Ellada?ti... pou einai merikoi anthropoi.... --Hectorian 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[4] made on June 26 2006 (UTC) to [[5]]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solanki etc

Thanks for the help.

It is hard to a get a good article going, when some people insist on reverting material, for the sake of it.

Ravi Chaudhary 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new page

Thank you for changing your user page. I don't know what made you to change that, but now we can talk like two normal human beings. Mutual respect is the first step in understanding each other. Best regards. --Cigor 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic compromise on tag

With two words you have brilliantly restored the NPOV we should so selflessly protect.

exeis gramma!:NikoSilver: 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about Russian Architecture, I have just restored it to something close to your version. Reason: Mbuk reverted pointing to talk about your change, where I could not see anything recently added. Note that I also corrected a gramamtical error in the text. "hundreds years" -> "hundreds of years". Keep up the good work! --[[User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy]] 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK sent me the same warning as to you. He then reverted, taking the grammatical error back in. It now turns out that all this is because he was not allowed to replace Chernigov (the old, and also Russian spelling) by Chernihiv (new Ukrainian spelling) in "Architecture of Kievan Rus'. In Wikipedia, the policy is to keep the old forms in historical contexts. What a circus. I decided to make a point ("advertise" seems to be the term here) and put "our" tag back in. I also replaced "the article" by "an article". The simple POV tag you proposed would also be OK for me. I hope I do not take too much of your time - it has taken too much of MY time.--Pan Gerwazy 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Slightly confused as to what is going on here, can you be more specific ? Judging by the amount of reverting going on I might just protect the article. - FrancisTyers · 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm blind, but I can't see Tamzigh mentioned in the RfAr. Can you point it out for me? - FrancisTyers · 12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that Tamzigh is a sockpuppet of one of these users... which one? I'm sorry I can't be of more help, the best option is to probably take this to WP:AN/I. - FrancisTyers · 12:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important

Please vote: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 28#Template:POV-tag --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comunism

Telex, I agree with you that comunism was wrong society, but after all mine people got partial freedom under that eastern regime, something that by novadays states is not recognised by "some" reasons. --Vlatko 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to be able to accept that counting the Bulgarian population of Pirin Macedonia as Macedonian was a temporary and unsuccessful political move. It was imposed from the outside in order to seek the joining of Bulgaria in Yugoslavia, with Pirin Macedonia becoming part of the Macedonian SR and the Western Outlands being given back to the future Bulgarian SR. Here's our point of view: http://demos.hit.bg/makm.html. Here's a further agrument: if there really were Macedonians in Bulgaria that were given actual freedom to self-determine back then, why would only those in Pirin Macedonia do so and not the at least twice as many refugees from the region living in other parts of the country? That's because a Macedonian ethnic consciousness was only needed there for political reasons, to justify a political decision that was never implemented after all.

It's absurd to think Stalinism gave freedom to anyone that modern democratic Bulgaria does not. You shouldn't believe everything you're told especially when you're living in the Republic of Macedonia, and should always doubt and check everything for yourself instead of repeating and repeating what could be regarded as propaganda. Todor →Bozhinov 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah... I wrote partial freedom ^{[citation needed]}. I just only want to show you that I'm not atacking you at all, I just defend and demand our rigths, have you been in Pirin?--Vlatko 19:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you wrote, but what you mean is, those Macedonians that you refer to enjoyed more rights then than they do now, which is ludicrous. And Dimitrov's descent can't in any way be the reason for that 'better status of Macedonians' you mention.

I haven't assumed you're attacking me, just noting what you say is not the truth as perceived by everyone, but just a point of view. It's OK to fight (figuratively) for your rights, but I don't see what's wrong with the so-professed Macedonians' rights in Pirin Macedonia today. They're a small minority and are treated as one. It's normal to ban anti-Bulgarian and anti-constitutional parties, I believe. If the newly-reregistered UMO Ilinden-Pirin does not act as one, it would not be banned, I can tell you that.

And yes, I've been to Pirin and Blagoevgrad Province. Todor →Bozhinov 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the text in POV because tag and do not replace it by another one

The purpose of the tag is to represent the view opposite to that represented in the article. The present version of the article reflects the view of one side of the dispute. In my opinion, it is not neutral. I marked our disagreement with the tag, which reflects my view. You may disagree with my view. Then let's work together to find a common point. Please do not edit the tag and do not replace it by another one.--AndriyK 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror Rajput Show

I've now written a little template for making the daily reports more efficient. Please see User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Rajput report, and what it does here and here. I'll appreciate any ideas or modifications on how to improve it. By the way, I'd suggest you and your valiant friends should make it a rule not to revert the guy until he's blocked for the day, that would make it a bit more efficient. If you like the template, we could move it to your space, "User:Telex" is quicker to type than "User:Future Perfect at Sunrise". --Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more! :NikoSilver: 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a user I registered to make my sig smaller, like User:N! for Niko. I wanted to have my talk page in my sig, but I didn't want a monsterous sig, so this seemed like a reasonable idea. I didn't intend to edit from it, but I think I may have made one edit by accident. - FrancisTyers · 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians

Have a look at the statements which I deleted. There were all uncited, unhistorical and POV. Mitsos 10:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Hectorian (a Greek, and self-declared Vlach) who argues that Patriarch Athenagoras is Aromanian, not me. Two, Romania did participate in the 1878 Russian-Turkish war. The rest are unjustified deletes, like the removal of the cities in Thede Kahl`s quote... greier 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops, someone is mentioning my name again:p... Yeap, I am Greek and Vlach (lol...self-declared?... why can't u just accept it? do not expect all people to have the same ideas with u...). U want references that Athenagoras was Aromanian (and 'strangely' all considered him a Greek by descent)? the Council of Europe says he was aromanian [6]. Quite to your surprise, Greier, the Farsarotul Society adapts the info of a newsletter and also says that [7]: Vlachs are well represented among the leading members of the Greek-American community, including such well-known figures as the late Archbishop and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and the 1988 Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, it goes even further to say that Iakovos and Michael Dukakis (2 of the most prominent greek-americans of the last half century) had and have (respectively) aromanian origins. this may seem odd to u, but they have never hidden their aromanian origins-at least people here know very well that they are Vlahoi. the fact is that the aromanians consider themselves and are considered by the rest of the Greeks as ... Greeks! u'd better finally accept it! --Hectorian 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

loooooooool! So wtf are they? Vlachs or Greeks? hahahha hahahhaaaaaaa haha.... greier 08:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol...latin-speaking Greeks... a subgroup of the Greeks... U can't understand it, can u? haha --Hectorian 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

This edit [8] of yours is fine by me:). I am not getting it anywhere, but honestly, i cannot even guess where are you getting it:/... your previous edit was like 'definately the Byzantine Empire was not Greek', although most scholars and sources disagree... --Hectorian 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was not Greek. I did say that it was not always Greek - initially, it was Latin. --Tēlex 19:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV does not differ from mine: it started as a Latin and ended as a Greek empire. that's why u cannot list it along with Roman Greece. Thus, i consider your last edit as accurate enough. Ciao --Hectorian 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity thumbnails

We need one for Greeks, too. The current one is awaiting speedy deletion at Commons. Jkelly 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doric

To 'xera oti tha mou to eleges afto:p. ta katwitalika exoun meikti proelefsi (kathws meiktos itan kai o apoikismos tis perioxis apo Iones, Aeoleis, Dorieis), kai kuriotata attiki, logw tis ellinistikis koinis kai tis byzantinis ellinikis. mono ta tsakonika proerxontai apo ti doriki dialekto, eimai sigouros. --Hectorian 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai polu kala tha kaneis:) --Hectorian 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Census

Here is the census data by ethnic group and province. According to it, there were 3,408 people who declared to be Greek (1,157 in the City of Sofia, 766 in Plovdiv Province are the larger numbers). Todor →Bozhinov 19:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrrghhhhh!

Stop the reverting on Arvanites. Please! Both of you...! -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, take a deep breath, okay? :-) You know I like you and your work, but between friends, I must say you should be a bit more cautious about using quick repeated reverts as a routine measure (except in cases like the Mutant Killer Rajputs, of course.) Don't let that become a habit, okay? I've seen people branded as edit-warriors at Arbcom for much less, just because they had been innocently standing near some dispute that happened to escalate to Arbcom later, and had a couple of reverts in their edit histories. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]