User talk:Aldux

Archives
Complete archive Individual archives: Jul 2005–Jan 2006 Feb 2006–Apr 2006

Sources for political dimension of The Battle of Pydna

I notice that you do not include Greek in the list of your language skills so you are unlikely to have read or be able to read Alekos Angelides History of Macedonia. His book in the original language and A H Scullard's "A History of the Greek World" were the sources for the additions to the article on the Battle of Pydna. Perhaps you would have the courtesy to replace the section you removed, though courtesy does not seem to be a quality you possess in abundance. Harfo32

Chadian-Sudanese conflict template

I have redesigned Template:Chadian-Sudanese conflict to make it usable. Check it out! KI 03:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarians

Aldux, I'm sure you know that putting Macedonians in See also section in Bulgarians by user LionKing is controversial. Also, I'm sure that you will agree that Macedonians are Macedonians, Bulgarians are Bulgarians. There is no need of such controversial and nationalistic steps that LionKing makes. Regards, Bomac 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your unexplained reversion

Dear Aldux, would you care to explain this. I'm genuinely curious as to why you revert without explaining why (either in an edit summary or on the talk page). I will not restore my version; I will ask you to either restore my version or provide a satisfactory explanation why you reject my edits (do you not think that the Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia, whose language is official, or the Aromanians, whose language is also official, exist, perhaps?). Ciao, --NikX 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me - why? --NikX 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Chad

I just brought the template in line with most other election tables. I do not mind the acromyns. Please see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Neglecting Chad

Sorry, and thanks for the link, I've been neglecting recent events that are part of the Chadian-Sudanese conflict, which I probably wont be getting to today, but hopefully tomorrow, assuming I'm not being lazy and I'm not writing what are clearly run-on sentences. KI 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ciao

Credo che la ultima edit battaglia a l'articolo di Macedon era trivia e tottalmente unimportante. Ho fatto una proposta piu semplice (anche se l'articolo era a la versione degli altri grechi) che credo puo contribuire a finire questa battaglia stupida. Se ci sono altri raggioni per tua scelta, per favore dimi.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Se ho capito bene, il problemo esiste perche credi che non si può dire con certezza che fosse simbolo dell'antico stato macedone. D'accordo, ma al momento, e con l' informazione che abbiamo, ci sono tanti che fanno questo associazione. Credo che se c'e qualchecosa da fare, questo sarrebe aggioungere la parola "...believed to be associated...". Invece tu, non hai fatto via il symbolo completamente, ma hai fatto via la frase che il symbolo e registrato. Capisco che la disputa moderna non serve nel'articolo, ma la frase che il symbolo e registrato dalla Grecia, serve per tanti ragioni:

• • Quando un symbolo esiste in WP (libera) che e registrato, gli utenti che lo vedono devono sapere.
  • Se qualcuno cerca il symbolo de la bandiera precedente di FYROM (che esiste dentro l'articolo di FYROM) deve sapere che oggi, questo symbolo e registrato dalla Grecia.
  • Anche, se c'era una disputa su questo symbolo antico entro Grecia e FYROM, gli utenti devono sapere il modo comme questa disputa e finita.
  • Nessuno ha fatto un' analyse de la disputa moderna in questo articolo e anch'io non voglio includere queste dispute pseudoscientifiche in un articolo per l'antiquita. Esiste solo una realta (che oggi questo symbolo e registrato). No dispute, no analyse, nient'altro.

Tuo amico,  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ho visto questo e volevo ringraziarti. Spero che non l'hai fatto solo perche l'ho richiesto io...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians

on which wiki page do you think the genetic research should be then?? --Makedonia 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Slave trade

Hi - I've started translating the French article - and also put a note on the translation page inviting comments on the title. --HJMG 07:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes, I agree that is the best title, but it's a pity that it may possibly be misunderstood. Anyway, I'm just translating not creating. It's a very interesting article, well-researched etc., and deserves its status as "article de qualité".

Can I ask for your historian's opinion about Sonni Ali Ber (1464–1492)? The French article says he was Muslim, the English WikiP says not. After googling around, I am wondering about changing Muslim to "nominally Muslim" in the translation, and possibly making some similar alteration to the page on English WikiP. Or would something else be fairer? "Muslim (while also holding animistic beliefs)" or "mainly Muslim"?

Thanks a lot - --HJMG 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"useless" is a bit harsh

desertification and nomadic peoples are mentioned. we're talking about still somewhat war-torn regions. what do you think would be an appropriate way to put that in it's proper gloabl and historical context? /izl 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Sparrow

Check out Operation Sparrow. The info will need to be added to Chadian-Sudanese conflict. KI 17:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh Macedonians (...again)

Ciao Aldux! Please follow my reasoning, if you feel like it:

Ok, now we have this situation:

• People say that it is a nationalistic view to think that your genes (your DNA) are directly related to your ancestors 3000 years ago. Correct? Yes. So, common genes talk is nationalistic talk. Right?
• Supporters of the theory that Alexander the Great, his father and his people that lived in his kingdom were not Greek, say that their genes were not specially connected to the Greek genes.
• On the other hand the guy studied in Greek, spread the Hellenic idea to the depths of Asia, thought of himself being Greek (or wanted to be one, at the very least) etc etc etc, ie did all those non-nationalistic things to display his Greekness.

So, the opposers to the Greekness of Ancient Macedonians, use an arguement that they themselves regard as nationalistic to support their position! I think the above rationale exposes blatant use of double standards. Don't you?

Tuo amico,  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Christos Anesti (Christ has risen), Aldux! Actually, no; I wasn't worried about user "Makedonia"'s crap. I was worried about everybody's reluctancy (including philhellens) to consider Ancient Macedonias as Greeks. As you said:

"Ethnicity is not determinated by blood, but by a common tradition and history."

I guess we both know how we should call Ancient Macedonians from now on then...

Ciao!— NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to leave an irrelevant message to Hectorian and then saw your discussion. I expressed my opinion openly in hectorian's page only because the on-going dialogue was there, I didn't indend to get involved into it. I didn't see it as a significant subject so I didn't feel the need to bother you personally. Sorry if I delivered offence, it wasn't meant to happen. Miskin 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian Question

Regarding your latest edit in 'Macedonian question', I'm under the impression that it gives an erroneous interpretation to Livy's record. The dialogue (if I remember correctly) takes place in the late 3rd century, during the second Punic war, where Macedon had allied itself to Carthage and Aetolia to Rome. The fact that Attic was adapted as the official-state language by Philip II is irrelevant to that time, and comes from a different source. Furthermore I'm of the opinion that the entire section on "who supports what" should be removed as it's treated in like 88 different articles already. Otherwise it can really get long and repetitive. Miskin 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek and Slav

Although it was 11 years ago and I do not now have the original letter from Mr Goryn, which claimed that Alexander the Great was a Slav and not a Greek, thus prompting my reply, the following letter I wrote was published on Tuesday, 5th January, 1995 in the Daily Telegraph:

Sir - Mr Goryn's letter (Dec 29th) does not reflect the true situtation in Skopje/Macedonia, and if his arguments were to be heeded they would not help. The Greeks do not have territorial ambitions over Skopje. No one in their right mind would wish to be involved with the political and economic disaster areas to the north of Greece. Nevertheless, the Greeks, a hard-working and prosperous people, would happily help their neighbours if the illegitimate claim on the name of Macedonia were to be dropped. If you travelled in this part of the world, you would soon apreciate that the true origins of Alexander the Great, the architecture and artefacts of the region are Greek, not Slav. The political shenanigans of Skopje would soon collapse if their outside abettors - probably Milosevich - were to be silenced.

harfo32

Vergina

Aldux, when the new flag was introduced in 1992 there was no indication from the parliament in Skopje or from the government that this was an adaptation of Vergina. There has never been official claims from the government (to my knowledge). Therefore to make such claims are POV. I hope you take my point and agree to keep my edit. Thank you in advance for your generous cooperation, your concern for editoria accuracy and for your understanding. Politis 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Petronius "Fake Quote"

I have to respectfully take issue with your removal of the "Fake Quote" section of the Petronius article. You indicated it "hardly seems relevant." Well, some coworkers and I were discussing the quote today. None of us are particularly well versed in the Classics and all believed the quote was genuine (hey, we're programmers). I went to the article to grab and, when I found it wasn't there, went looking so I could add it as a legitimate quote. Thankfully, the Wikiquote still had a link back to the deleted section, which stopped me in my tracks and caused me to start looking at the history log.

Frankly, while I agree that dedicating an entire section for a false quote might seem unnecessary, the fact is that the quote is one of those delicious bits of wisdom that laymen like myself want to believe are correct (just look at all the false quotations attributed to Twain, Franklin, or even George Carlin floating around out on the Internet). I'm sure it is simply a matter of time before another layman like myself winds up adding the quote to the article as legitimate.

Would you consider restoring the section? I don't want to step on any toes. I understand if you'd want to reduce the size of it or restructure it, but there really should be some indication in the article that there's a false quote out there. If you think it the section should remain axed, please let me know why, either in either of our talk sections or in Talk:Petronius.

Thank you for your time,

--KNHaw 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Throughout the world, laymen with just enough knowledge to be dangerous (i.e. like myself) are rejoicing.

Thanks again,

--KNHaw 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Revenge of the Galatians? (Main page craziness)

I've watchlisted Attalus I, and I'll try to help out reverting vandalism. I don't look forward to seeing articles I care about on the Main Page, because such a mess gets made of them during the constant vandalism. Jkelly 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Donald Yamamoto

Just started Donald Yamamoto. KI 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Do you have an opinion on this? The debate concerns this edit. If you'd like to express your opinion, I'd be glad to hear it and you know I value it (whatever it may be)! Ciao!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Macedonian language. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. I think it's time you started using the talk pages a little bit more - someone has to make the first move, let it be you. Telex 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To allege

You know, wiktionary:allege is not really a weasel word. It merely means: a mere assertion made without any proof. I think it fits the bill :-) Telex 20:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians

The text that I reverted implies among other untruths that the macedonians were created after WW2. Do you agree with that POV??? --Realek 22:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct the defective parts then, don't make blind reverts like a newbie. Telex 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For the relatively short time I've been here I learned that no kind of "moderate" action will "soften" nationalistic hot-heads. Forgive me for not asuming good faith anymore when speaking to you Telex, but I can't endlessly tolerate the insults about my people from you and similar types. Like I said - your words and theories will not bring any good (even to what you think is your cause) , but will continue to spread balkan nationalistic poison. And the price is being paid and will continue to be paid by everybody in the region. But I've pretty much given up defending even obvious things, because some thing can't be explained to somebody who refuses to think. Just stop preaching me about nationalism and how to behave here. You don't have the credibility to do that. --Realek 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nationalistic hot-heads"? If that were directed to someone, I'd report you for personal attacks right now. I have not insulted your people, nor anyone else. I have stated the facts, whether you like them or not. Why don't you go and have a rest - you should stay cool when editing Wikipedia. Angry comments help no one. Telex 23:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You can say a million nice things about yourself and even more bad things about me, but nobody besides greek nationalists here will take you seriously. Your irational theories speak best for them selves mr "cosmopolitan". And you preaching me about things that you violate so frequently is so funny. --Realek 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Aldux I still havent got any comment from you - are you OK with the version that among other things implies that:

1. Tito's actions had a number of important consequences for the Macedonians. The most important was, obviously, the promotion of a distinctive Macedonian identity as a part of the multiethnic society of Yugoslavia. The process of ethnogenesis gained momentum, and a distinct national Macedonian identity was formed.
2. Greek Macedonians are actually an ethnic group
3. Tito separated Yugoslav Macedonia from Serbia
4. There was no resentment towards the Bulgarian repression during the beginning of the Bulgarian occupation of the region, by removing that sentance.

The text was far from perfect anyway, but this version is even closer to Macedonian negators positions. --Realek 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to break-in but I need to make a remark. Nobody ever claimed that "Greek Macedonians" is a distinct ethnic group. However, I'm not aware of any wikipedia policy which strictly enforces the usage of an ethnic group's name in similar scenarios. Therefore I don't see any valid, non-biased arguments against the use of this term. As far as I'm concerned the name is in wide use by Balkan historians and has a separate entry in the Australian encyclopedia of ethnic origins (as Greek Macedonians arrived in Australia before Macedonia was unified with Greece). Today's Greek population is the amalgam of an ethnically similar, yet culturally diverse people which stressed from the Ionian sea to western Asia Minor. There was a huge cultural difference between the Greeks of the Venetian-held Ionian island and those of Pontus, and a disambiguation must be made where required. Having said that, I see no rational reason to ignore such important cultural elements due to a single editor's ignorance and chauvinist bias. Miskin 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah

Thanks for your help. Would you mind keeping an eye on that page? Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your new userpage...

...is GREAT! I just made this minor correction and hope you approve! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just saw you're online and thought to say ciao! Could you please e-mail me, so that I get your address and respond? Sorry, you can't e-mail me if you haven't registerd an address yourself. It's safe, no spam, no problem whatsoever, and you'll be able to mail others and receive mails from others WITHOUT them seeing your address!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vlachs

No, Mikkalai sprotected it. I just added {{sprotected}}, check the revision history. Telex 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

... for what? Telex 19:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Two new

check out Rally of Democratic Forces (rebel group) and Dalola raid. KI 02:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)

Dear Aldux,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aldux, Please do not propagate that Scanderbeg (Giorgos Kastriotis) was an ethnic Albanian because he was not

The evidence is quite clear that Albania as a nation did not exist prior to the 20th century. Giorgios Kastriotis was of Epirotian origin. That is already an established fact. The Epirotians are (as any high school child would know)a very ancient Greek tribe. How on earth did Albania suddenly start claiming the Epirotians is surprising me (Being half Epirotian myself I can trace my anscestors to late Byzantium-something very few people can do). In the 2oth century the western powers gave them North Epirus disregarding the fact that 90% of the population in that region were Greek (Ironically they claim the same in Kosovo today?!). They gave them the Byzantine Eagle as their new national symbol (basically stealing it from the legendary Kastriotis who used that regional Byzantine symbol as his emblem). Kastriotis was a devout Greek Orthodox Christian who fought the Ottomans very bravely. He corresponded with the Paleologi in order to combat the Ottoman onslaught till the very end. I challenge you (or anyone) to show me evidence where Scanderbeg considered himself to be Albanian and more so where the word Albanian exists during his time?! And let us not forget the last fact- that Giorgios Kastriotis' (scanderbeg) native language was Greek (there was no established Albanian language at the time.

He's was half-Serbian but he's widely regarded as Albanian, you have to accept it (to anon). Miskin 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or half-Bulgarian; I gave a look at the sources, and there is controversy on this.--Aldux 19:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well at least we can all agree that he was not a pure Albanian. But I urge for anyone to take a look at the fact that he was a prince in Epirus. And Epirus was a classical Greek Kingdom. I will say it should be looked into more (but his bio on Wikipedia should be presented as a a hero of Albania as well as Greece- to be fair).I can tell you Miskin one thing, Constantine Paleologos Dragas (The last Byzantine Emperor was surely Half Serbian and Half Greek).And guess who corresponded with the Byzantine Emperor?!

Also one other famous man Basil the Second also known as the Bulgar-slayer who was of the Macedonian dynasty fought a very famous Bulgar at the time- Samuel who by the way had a very questionable last name -Kometopoulos!? Go figure. What do I mean by all this? Its the fact that many Emperors were already of mixed descent-that is the point.That is why Scanderbeg cannot be portrayed as just Albanian!

Thracians Article

You stated that I am in danger of violating 3RR for the Thracians article. Well Aldux, you do emphasize the importance of placing sources whenever something new appears in an article. Case in point, you stated that you would allow the section "Illyrians as Dorians" to appear on the Illyrians article if I provided non-Greek sources. Fair enough. I would love to go an do some research to help further validate (or even dismiss) the content that I placed in the overall section.

Now here is the ironic part. You expect people to provide sources in order for them to validate their statements. A sound policy. For example, in the Illyrians article I completely understood where you were coming from and already decided to conduct some research (instead of engaging in a useless revert war). However, in the Thracians article the section I placed is supported by a source. To, in a sense, "warn" me for violating 3RR because the section I placed in the Thracians article is supported by a valid source is kind of rash. Of course, I don't expect you to agree with me (don't feel bad, a lot of people tend to disagree with me even when I tell them the truth).

Let's be realistic Aldux. Do you really think that banning me will accomplish anything? I am just asking out of curiousity. You know what, don't answer that question. I pretty much have a feeling that your answer will entail the following: "If it stops you from reverting articles, then yes!" Anyway, my job as a sociologist is to conduct research even if the results I get make members of mainstream academia want to commit acts of self-defenistration. Sure, I am what you call an "imperfect sociologist". Yet, I tend to like being unconventional from time to time since it makes life a little bit more interesting. However, you have to ask yourself every time I alter an article, "Why is Deucalionite doing this?" More often than not, I will give you an honest answer if you just ask instead of assume that I am changing articles just to upset you or anyone else for that matter.

Just so you know, I fixed the references in the Thracians article and there is still a reference that supports the section "Thracians and Myceneans". If you want to ban me and receive a barnstar just because I think people deserve the right to know about the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, then have fun. However, please do not follow a certain path that leads you to a place where words and actions don't coincide. Take care and remember that wooden nickels are not legal tender in 48 states. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 5, 2006 6:34 P.M.

The Argead dynasty

Independently of the origins of ancient Macedonians, I think you would agree that everyone in both antiquity and modern times would accept that the Macedonian ruling class descended of the Argives and Heraclids, and most definitely participated in the Olympic Games. It is blatant from ancient citations (e.g. Callisthenes, Demosthenes) that Philip II and Alexander III did claim Greek origin at least for themselves (and in several occasions for all Macedonians). Not long ago you said that Pontus was not a fully Hellenic Kingdom because the royal family claimed Persian origin. Aren't you using double standards in the case of Macedon? Why are many Roman Emperors labeled by an ethnic origin and Macedonians aren't? It's almost as if it's been done on purpose. Macedon was 100% Hellenised by the 4th century BC, and it's very probable and well supported that it's been Hellenic since the beginning. Yet the articles deal with it as if it was a barbarian Kingdom similar to Illyria. Do you honestly find the Macedon-related articles completely unbiased? Miskin 11:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I wasn't very clear. I don't wish to change the status of the Macedonian language nor try to refer to Macedon as another Greek Kingdom. It was different in several cultural aspects and it has to be differentiated, at least during the Classic period (in Hellenistic time there was a clear assimilation). My objections are on the articles of the Macedonian Kings who felt themselves to be Greek (relates to our older discussion on the criteria of an ethnic group). Alexander III's and Philip II's article nowhere mentions how that at least the Argead dynasty was of Greek origin. In my opinion this is not mentioned due to the general chaos which evolves the word "macedonia", and not because it was simply forgotten. I don't think this is NPOV. The Macedonian royalty has always participated in the Olympics, meaning that they viewed themselves and were viewed by others as Greek. If they were really the descendants of Indo-european Greek-speakers is something irrelevant, let alone impossible to prove. I'm telling you this because I'm plannig to make some edits that will be based on ancient quotations, and I don't want it to be viewed as POV-pushing. I'll cite sources accordingly. Miskin 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at these passages for instance [1][2][3][4], what does it look that Philip considers himself? There are countless of such quotes by Alexander as well, and I think it needs to be mentioned in their respective articles at least how the Argead dynasty viewed itself. Miskin 14:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I want to make any edits really. I just wanted to know your opinion on this. The Argead dynasty did view itself as Greek and the Greeks let them participate in the Olympics since the at least 6th century. In what degree they were genetically the ancestors of Greek-speakers is obviously of no importance. Miskin 14:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A poll?

Um... you recently said that there had been a poll to determine the location of the article Macedonians (ethnic group). Where is it, because I think you are mistaken. There has been no definitive poll over the naming of this article and it was only moved from Macedonian Slavs to Macedonians (ethnic group) by a unilateral move and a damaged redirect (so that it couldn't be moved back). Ciao :-) Telex 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, because I was wondering. BTW what is "Kαιρε" supposed to mean. There is Κύριε (Mr - vocative case) and Χαίρε (singular)/Χαίρετε (plural) (Greetings) and also Καιρέ (weather - vocative case) ;-) Telex 17:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kastoria

I would like to know why you have the south slavic name of Kastoria on the Kastoria article. Who cares what its called in another language, its a Greek city. If your going to add south slavic why not add what its called in the rest of the world. Adding Greek and slavic gives the impression that they are somehow related. And that good sir is a fallacy.

Pope Stephen IX (or X)

Hi,

I read what you wrote on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło about the attempt to rename the page into Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, and I agree totally with you. I think as rule there can't be more than one variant of a name in the title of an article. If more than one variant is possible, the title must chose only one and the others must be explained in the text itself and redirects must be used from alternative titles. If such alternative titles were admitted in the article's title itself, then we'd have to rename, for examples, Stepanakert into Stepanakert/Xankəndi, Tighina into Tighina/Bender/Bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq...

I am myself implicated in a very long and endless debate which is, I think, similar to this one. It's about the need to rename the article Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX, and so on until Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II. The historical reasons of this naming problem are detailed in Pope-elect Stephen. Those historical facts are not the matter of the debate. Everybody agrees on those facts. The problem is some users want to rename Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX (or X), which is an absurdity because of the same reasons as above.

I've launched this debate on 19 February and it is endless because it seems to interest very few people and it's impossible to reach a majority. I'm now prospecting for other people who would share my opinion on the matter. If you think you have something to say about this, I would be very glad if you did on Talk:Pope_Stephen_X. I thank you in advance.

Švitrigaila 00:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank you very much for having answerd my call. :o) Švitrigaila 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Explaine to me

I do not understand why you are against this article, it seems that you have no ide or no real fact about this article you are changing..

OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please take a look at the Bitola article? Telex has disrupted the hardly achieved compromise around that article and even inserted unsourced info that has really nothing with the name of the city. Now they are also destroying what I hardly achieved on the Macedonians (ethnic group)MatriX 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it unsourced?I've cited the source, name of the author, book and even page. What sources were there before? Nothing. What exactly is unsourced? Your info is unsourced and is full of fact templates for a reason. Telex 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, arbitrary edits over other people weeks of hard work just generate revert wars, you should know that by now. Telex 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Reverts

Hi, Aldux, I apologize if I've been a little too bad tempered lately. I'm sure you understand that it's to do with being reverted; I hate it when people do that, especially when it's by people like you who actually know something (if eg Vlatkoto reverted me, I wouldn't care less :p). I'll probably regret saying this in the future, but please continue reverting me if I make excruciatingly POV edits. Regards, --Telex 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Accepted is more appropriate than Adopted. I also agree with 'former' rather than 'Former' because that is how it was mentioned in UN resolution 817 [[5]]. Politis 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians

Sorry it took me so long to respond. Im avoiding Wikipedia lately because it's really frustrating for me to see what's on the "macedonian" pages. For a Macedonian it is a higly offensive enviroment. I wasn't angry with you Aldux, I was just dissapointed because without neutral people balancing the Greek majority over Macedonians those pages will slide to nasty greek propaganda. As for Telex, considering his knowledge in wikipedia, style and behaviour - I doubt he's a newbie. I know it's not a nice thing to say, but at least I'm honest and I dont hide my thoughts behind nice words like so many hipocrites here do, but their actions make them transparent anyway. But on to the sticky points:

1. I dont know what was your intention but a sentance like: The process of ethnogenesis gained momentum, and a distinct national Macedonian identity was formed clearly suggests that a distinct identity was absent prior to 1945. I'm confused... Do you support that view?????
2. I know what you feel about Macedonian Greeks as an ethnic group, that's why I was even more surprised. In your answer to me you say that it's not implying that they are actualy an ethnic group, but the sentance clearly states them as an ethnic group. And you say that compromises are necesary, but how can you make a compromise with a clearly false statemant? And how many compromises should be made under pressure from all kinds of nationalists. To be honest the version that I red before writing this was acceptable to me but again makes me wonder how many Greek explanations, notes, footnotes and so on should theese pages have? Are these pages here for Greek nationalist to express every thought they have and to put pro-greek nationalist POVs in every corner of the articles???
3. You are wrong about this one. Macedonia wasn't part of "Serbia" in the kingdom of Yugoslavia. Serbia simply didn't exist as an separate entity in the kingdom - Yugoslavia consisted of "banovini". So it wasn't separated from Serbia, but was granted a republic status. And the belif that Tito did whatewer he wanted with Macedonia and the Macedonians is really hard to belive. Altough some of the points mentioned about his "pro-Macedonian" motives are valid, a crucial one is left out: the Macedonian comunist party and liberation army were much more loosely conected to the Yugoslav ones than others in Yugoslavia. There were significant pro-independance forces in Macedonia and this couldn't have been ignored by Tito and KPJ, so concessions to the Macedonians were necesary to keep Macedonia in the new federation peacefuly.
4. I realy dont understand why I should provide sources for such well known things, especially since it will be reverted anyway (with or without dismissing the sources). All this while some are slipping all kinds of stuff into articles and keeping them there by majorisation in rewert wars.

Finaly, you advise me: the best way to awnser to those editors who say that the Macedonians were invented in 1945 is in collecting good, strong sources. I don't think that we should get into sourcing that kind of stuff. I think that those editors are clearly not-well intentioned and I won't accept playing their game by trying to proove such things as my grandfathers national feelings. And even if I do it, it wont make any impression on them. They'll stick to their theories. Altough I'm not a wikipedia member for a long time, I have learned that some people here will negate even pure mathematics.

--Realek 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to editors who will jump on this message by preaching me, or by acting diplomatic and nice to me: I'm ignoring you

--Realek 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We too.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This just makes me laugh - the article currently says:

The majority of Macedonians today inhabit parts of the geographical region of Macedonia along with other ethnic groups, mainly Greeks (known as Greek Macedonians or simply Macedonians in this region), Albanians and Bulgarians.

It does not imply that they are a seperate ethnic group. On a second tone, it's not the evil Graeco-Bulgarian requiring the sources, it's Wikipedia policy, so if you want to work without citing sources, I suggest you start a wiki of your own (call it Realekpedia). BTW, yes, even in Macedonian nationalism, there was some confusion over over the alleged ethnicity of the Macedonians at that time. According to Macedonian nationalists, the Miladinov Brothers, who wrote what they called Bulgarian folk songs, in what they described as the Bulgarian languages, really meant Macedonian, just there was some ethnic confusion at that time. As for your claim that we should believe your assertions about the self identification of your gradparents, I'll respond with your own words: Why should anybody belive you??? Just because you say so??? Shouldn't people take into account your obvious bias??? Telex 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I maintain my previous position. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ciao Al, puoi spiegarmi perche hai fatto questo (solo di curiosita, perche non capisco la differenza). NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Io penso che gli esempi siano utili. Telex 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah si? Perche? (sinceramente NON SO!)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you (Niko) ask me a question about the distant definite article at Talk:FYROM? That's why. Telex 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They were removed following a stupid error on my part, that I've now corrected. I probably gave a look to a wrong version. It may be all crap, but I don't have enough knowledge of the issue to decide this.--Aldux 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation done

Samothrace_temple_complex done - will have another look in a few days for style. (I need a break - archeology is NOT my field ) please see the Talk page, there are some minor problems both in terms of translation & accuracy/inconsistency in the fr article - perhaps you are wiser in this area. This has also lead to some other articles in the works - anastylosis & Neorion for two...should have those in a week or so. Bridesmill 19:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit & additional wl's - didn't realize BCE worked as well as BC (I prefer it myself). But plural of sheep is 'sheep', btw (yest, englishj is a wackey language ). I got anastylosis & Neorion done - used the de: and fr: for the former. Cheers. Bridesmill 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist test (di Francis)

Ciao, puoi vedere questo e dare tuo opinione su Lombardian nationalist (e anche per gli altri)?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Munir Bashir

Thank you so much for correcting me. And yes, I guess I was aiming for the German version. Thanks again! Chaldean 14:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

I saw your request as well but I thought it hadn't received any attention yet. I have stopped translating the article. Miskin 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is done. ;-) Bridesmill 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fyrom (ancora e ancora e ancora...)

About this, I'm sure nobody's happy. They just want to undervalue the significance of Albanian officiality (de facto since constitution/Ohrid states more than 20%=official; and de jure since 25% is a serious crowd!) Who cares anyway, let them make it a carnival of an article. I'm sick of argueing...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Amusing

I laughed when I read this from CNN. Notice the names of the two groups' leaders: "Chadian Information Minister Hourmadji Moussa Doumgor accuses the Government of Sudan of facilitating a new alliance between Mahamat Nour's UFDC and the defected troops of Mahamat Nouri against the Déby administration. Neither group has confirmed or denied the merger." KI 01:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for the warm welcome, Aldux. I am not quite sure how to get in touch with you, but I hope this is the correct way. If you have visited my User Page(?), you will have seen my brief biography. I am a Zambian and am interested in the history of the whole of the southern African region.

Fortunately, I use the computers of Manchester City Council Libraries, in England. As a member of the libraries, I have access to a whole lot of online resources, such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. I have been using these to get the gist of the material, then I edit them to avoid plagiarism. Some of the stuff is what I already know from my education in Zambia and my personal reading around the subject of Zambian history. Even if I don't have the books at hand, I have read them and I know that the people who used them as references in Oxford Dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica have the correct details.

I hope to make good contributions to the Wikipedia, although I am worried that there is so much to read!

Thanks, again.

Mungomba

Illyrians as Dorians Section

Why did you remove the section "Illyrians as Dorians" in the Illyrians article again? Did you actually read the section or did you just assume that it would be the same thing as last time? Did you check the footnotes? The least you could have done was inform me as to why you removed the section this time. I guess you failed in that department. Your job pretty much is to revert article content and ask questions later, right?

I don't know. Perhaps you perceive me as an amateur propagandist and nothing else. Nice assumption, but wrong person. Well, since you cannot give me decent reasons why you reverted the section this time, allow me to help list them for you:

1) Carleton S. Coon is evil and should not be placed in the section.

2) Etienne Balibar and Alexander Fol are not worthy scholars.

3) Roman sources from the 2nd century BC that discussed Queen Teuta's "half-Hellenic" country never existed.

4) Polybius is a fictional character from a science-fiction movie.

5) Greek mythology is not a metaphorical record of oral stories about actual people, but a mere collection of lies.

6) The concept of "barbarian" is simple only meaning "non-Greek" and never meaning "unsophisticated Greek".

7) Sociological analyses of the ancient Greek political climate have no relevance whatsoever.

Of course, the first answer I expect from you when you read this is as follows: "I removed the section because it is 'original research' and there is no one who supports that the Illyrians spoke Greek." Or something along those lines. Yet, you fail to take into consideration the possibility of a connection between Illyrian tribes and Doric tribes. I do not expect you or anyone else to accept the section's content as gospel (though I would be flattered if you did). Besides, if such a connection between Illyrians and Dorians did exist in the past, then why not explain it? I placed sources that validate whatever aspects of "original research" you might find in the section. I guess there is nothing that satisfies your demands.

Here is what you can do. Why don't you actually read the section and make constructive suggestions? No wait. Here is an even better idea. Why don't you actually help me conduct research to validate (or denounce) what was written in the article section? The only way your going to see an expanded Illyrians article is to actually help people who are trying to do such a thing. Being an editor does not only entail hacking, slashing, and decimating content. There are also procedures for refining content and constructively enhancing information that may actually prove to be valuable for readers. Of course, you probably know this already. Or not. I really don't care up to this point.

I am going to put the section back and I expect from you to "warn" me about my violating 3RR (without of course explaining why you removed the section for the second time). Read this message completely before responding in my discussion page. Over and out. Deucalionite 21:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've reported Deucalionite for 3RR. A pity he insists so much on this, because he seems to be a decent fellow and open to friendly discussion, but in this case his judgment seems terribly off the mark. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not the same

Please check User_talk:Matia.gr#Need_for_translator_.28fr_to_en.29 - the place described is in lower Macedonia not mid-north Albania (Axios etc). However Mat may (or may not) be traced back to Emathia (if John came from Emathia to Mat for example and gave that name etc). talk to +MATIA

Greece translations

It's a pleasure; hadn't done any reading on Greece since high school, & that was a few years ago. Very pleasant break from mundane life ot be poking around the ancient writers again. Personally, I prefer BCE, but really not fussed either way. Consistency is important - I will go & change them myself right now as its a dumb format mistake to make. Bridesmill 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pomaks

Hello. I've noticed you're working on a major rewrite of Pomaks. It seems like the article corresponds to the article Muslim Bulgarians (Pomaks is just a local/informal/derogatory name) and I believe we should merge them, but would like to know what you think first. I'm interested in this quite vague and sometimes controversial topic and would like to help create a good, neutral and unbiased article. Also, we should settle on some transliteration — whether the official one or scientific transliteration. The second is more accurate while the first one is... official :) → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all right, I only meant making them one article and didn't intend to imply Muslim Bulgarians is a better name — as you said, it isn't. The article(s) and the topic really need major work and good referencing, so what you've assigned to yourself is an important task. Count on me for any help I could offer. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 21:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Category Deletion

Please visit [6] and weigh in!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Prostitutes

Prostitution in Ancient Greece is complete & ready for critique/copyedit etc. It was fun to do.Bridesmill 15:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

re. Alimentation - you have these up your sleeve ready to go, don't you? .Bridesmill 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You sot LOL - you have me addicted to these, you realize that? I'll do it, but will leave it open on the list for now in case someone else is feeling 'ripped off' becasue I keep jumping on these, I'm doing Artemis Orthia right now, stumbled on thet through the prostitution article, not an FA on the french wiki but still interesting.Bridesmill 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Artemis Orthia is up now, in case you didn't have anything better to do ...LOL.Bridesmill 00:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Basta colla tua grecofilia

Basta colla tua grecofilia tendenzionista! Ai capito bene?Apostolos Margaritis 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aldux! Margaritis has already made up his mind [7]. --Hectorian 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See Hectorian, me and Dahn much as we share the same ethnic background do NOT necessarily support each other. I think that's rather elegant, fair and in the spirit of wikipedia. Sadly you Greeks are grouping yourselves on ethnic lines so to speak. As I once said, you're still stunted, need to grow up. I would very much suggest you try to grow a bit more sophisticated and becomeless obsessed by your own ethnic background Apostolos Margaritis 10:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What common ethnicity do you have with Dahn? As far as I know Aromanians = Greeks. --Telex 10:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes and pigs fly. Hey I'm in an excellent mood today so you won't drag me into the Vlach quagmire again. Apostolos Margaritis 10:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you only suffered from gynaikophilia... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Say it in Italian, NikoSilver (as Margaritis also did): bambolaphilia...:)--Hectorian 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he said it in a self-invented Romano-Italian portmanteu... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, i just tried to edit something clever, don't shoot me! (and to show i know some Italian-...vanitas vanitatis....u know:)...) --Hectorian 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ela re patriotes. It's really depressing to see a) Greeks decorating each other (Latinus lavishing NikoSilver and Hectorian with medals, Telex awarding medals to Matia.gr: you name them) yes we know Cyprus and Greece failing to achieve Enosis always award each other 20 points at Eurovision b) Greeks never ever daring to argue with one another: again, probably from a misunderstood sense of a monolithic patriotism. You're in fact quite similar to a pack of wolfs. Coward when on your own always brave when walk in packs. Not to worry, now I am here so I can guarantee you there's lot of fun to be had. Apostolos Margaritis 10:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Woof. --Telex 10:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a new moon where you are right now triggering those wolf chants of yours Telex?Apostolos Margaritis 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Who did you vote for at the Eurovision, Greece? --Telex 10:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Saturday evening I've been munching sushi and beef katsu until late at Nobu. By the time I arrived home it was too late to see the aging diva Anna Vissi (is that her name?). But I caught a glimpse of Nana Mouskouri though. Someone stop her, please, please was begging on the BBC the presenter Terry Wogan. Of course I didn't bother to vote for the Eurotrash contest Apostolos Margaritis 10:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

'Greeks awarding medals and never arguing with each other'... I thought u believed that the Aromanians are not Greeks...:/. how strange, i am Greek and i am Aromanian! as for the comments on Eurovision, Vissi and the 'quarantees' u gave, one phrase can be said: mare lucru... --Hectorian 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, that's a nice "Latin" nick-name you've got yourself. It's crystal clear to me that, should you really be a Vlach, you belong to the sad faction of the Grecomani Vlachs. A sort of reversed Janissary, exposed from early childhood to Greek only culture, language, school, propaganda, so much in fact that he came to believe he's a Greek, am I correct? But it's your choice, your life. In fact it's too late you became something else by now, so well done, here's another assimilated Vlach, what's the big deal? We are in 2006, I hope time will come when the Greeks will allow you to have your first Vlach language newspaper or your first Vlach language FM radio station. Even the Baluba tribes in Congo have probably got their own media by now. You're not asking too much inn'it? What? You don't want this? You don't want to offend the Greeks by asking for rights for Vlach language? Listen, the Greeks are well-known for their generosity and tolerance. So here is yet another reason for wanting to remain a Greek wanabee. Better on the side of the bosses than being the underdog, inn'it? I think it's worth the sacrifice Apostolos Margaritis 11:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tired, but i will respond to these 'comments': my nick name is not Latin (apart from the -ian, of course). my real name is more greek than u can imagine... apropos, your nick is vlach, isn't it?:p. i am an aromanian (in fact half-aromanian), proud to say it, and i belong to the vast majority of aromanians who have always considered themselves Greeks (cause this is simply what we are). a Janissary? Huh? no need to comment on that (it was deliberately said to bring tension in the discussion). i was indeed exposed to greek culture since i was born...u know, greeks are usually exposed to greek culture, italians to italian and so on... and my ancestors, as further back to the history of my family i can go, they were also exposed to greek culture. vlach language newspaper? hmmm in which alphabet, with which grammar and syntax? u seem to forget that aromanian evolved as an idiom from vulgar latin and never had a written form. not to mentioned that it has always been used along with greek from its speakers. perhaps u are dreaming of someone who will invent all things necessary to create a new ethnic identity? u know, more things are needed for a nation to be born... not to forget that their is no historian from those early times talking about a migration of the romanians to the south (speaking about greek propaganda? why don't u look at the romanian one?)of course, there will always be Alkiviades s, trying to create something that never existed for their own purposes (i know that u have been editting articles related to him... always remember that he was a facist pawn, with no supporters (perhaps the name he should have would be Ephialtes). and for me, all those (a couple of people, i mean) who desperately try to split the aromanians from the rest of the Greeks, are just wannabe princes or dictators.

Wow! A Greek, a Vlach and an Arvanite are conspiring with a grecophile Italian against an impartial Aromanian, who is not supported even by his fellow editors! My, my, those guys over at the Epsilon Team have managed to compile all contradicting ideologies, nationalities and self-identifications into one immaculately homogenic revengeful wolf-pack! We should redirect Absolute brain washing machine directly to Greek propaganda... (that, or you just can't see you're simply wrong)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, this one's really great Niko. I must admit that when I read Apostolos message I felt myself invaded by a wave of good humour; immagining myself member of a cosmopolitan cospiration designed to promote Greek nationalism was simply a too magistral idea. I think time has come we disband the Epsilon Team, guys; Apostolos has at the end discovered The Truth.... Tendentious Graecophiliac 16:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the term was "philhellene". --Telex 16:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I too, but certainly Apostolos knows better ;-) Tendentious Graecophiliac 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Apostole, eu sunt cu tine! esti fratele meu, di sânge shi di limba. greier 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything has started with Greeks like Miskin etc. and Italians (if he really is one) who became Greek bootliskers the likes of Aldux deleting and vandalizing my editing. Don't get me wrong. I was just insinuating in a very elegant and gentle manner that according to some scholars Saint Cyril might have had Slavic roots but that was enough to cause an immense outrage among the Greeks folowed by a violent and co-ordinated strike. They in effect are undermining from inside the wiki project trying to divert it off its neutral non-partizane path and convert it or re-direct it if you wish into a Greek ethnocentric national project. Ceea ce-mi displace e faptul ca se ascund, se deghizeaza. Ia-l de exemplu pe acest Aldux. El pretinde ca e italian pe cand, in realitate e grec. Ei vor sa creeze confuzie sa dea impresia ca punctul lor de vedere e sustinut si de non-greci. In acest context, oare nu e logic ca si noi sa ne organizam efectiv si sa ne ajutam reciproc? Apostolos Margaritis 11:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"El pretinde ca e italian pe cand, in realitate e grec." ?!?!?!?!?! Sarei Greco adesso?! Ma possibile che tu non ti renda conto fino a che punto stai diventando paranoico? Anche se devo ammettere che i tuoi insulti sono particolarmente divertenti; mi ricordano quelli di Asteraki, che mi chiama odiatore dei Greci. Quanto al tuo disegno di creare una combriccola stile mafioso, non contare di ottenere grande successo; l'unico che si unirebbe ad uno piano tanto sciaugurato é Greier. Comunque, che tu mi creda o meno non me ne può fregar di meno.--Aldux 11:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Auzi! Acum am creat o adevarata la piovra vlacha... :) greier 12:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Eu ti-am zis, cand vrei ajutor, trebuie doar sa-mi zici. 11:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Greier, you can say it in English. Eastern Romance languages aren't that hard to decipher: Apostole, I am with you! you are my brother, of blood and language. --Telex 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or in Italian: Apostole, io sono con te! sei mio fratello, di sangue e di lingua. (talking about wolf-packs!)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or in Arvanitika: Apostol, u jam me ti. Je vëllai im, i gjakut edhe i gljuhës. --Telex 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So, wouldn`t be a shame for this beautiful language to be lost forever, replaced by tzeflekiki, pouliki, moukiki, poulos, karagolous, mousos and all that ousos greier 15:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the Greek language. All languages have good and bad points - I admit though, it is a shame for any language to die out. --Telex 15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, Greier, these are not Greek words (except maybe "poulos"). Actually the transliteration would be quite pleasant for the ears: Apostóli, eghó íme mazí su, íse adhelfós mu, sto éma ke sti ghlóssa...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL... ;-) --Telex 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Al, since you're adding sub-pages, why not make one for /Tendentious Graecophiliacs too?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose to use it for? Tendentious Graecophiliac 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about including all those edits of yours that most nationalist Greeks would consider offensive?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Better not, I'm afraid they're so many that if I disclose the magnitude and amount of them, not only Greek nationalists will start calling me "Greek-hater" (as an editor once did) ;-)--Aldux 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your stance on this Aldux, what on earth does it matter what some random calls you? You once told me that you always support the view of the current consensus and do not try to investigate by yourself wheter it's true or accurate. You see that there's not one single source to support the opposing view, so why are we even discussing this any further? Miskin 21:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)