User talk:Yannismarou/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pericles

I am deeply obliged to your consideration, and your second thoughts. I will see if there are any tweaks which would be helpful, but it was clear that the article would deserve to be featured, so the worst the closure can have done will be to give the star a day or two earlier than it might have been. As it was, it was better than many articles which have appeared on the main page. Septentrionalis 18:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page; it's good to see that everything has worked out for the best. I really enjoyed working with you on this article, which is one of the most thoroughly researched articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! --Robth^Talk 20:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like it's going to finally make FA! I am having some major anger building up against a couple of admins who are doing some very weird things with my university IP addresses (in a nutshell indefinitely blocking the IPs but allowing account creation, because a month ago a vandal with an account claimed he was from this university), so I think I will take a break from wikipedia for a few days to try to forget about it and restrain myself from killing people. So an early congrats to you for almost completely on your own writing such a great FA-quality article! P.S. I have started looking through Demosthenes, looking good so far, I will try to write something on its talk page once I'm done with it.--Konstable 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So they finally got around to giving us the star! :) well, it was mostly your work, of course ;) Glad I could help a bit. Druworos 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Demosthenes and putting Pericles on the front page

I have left some notes for you on Talk:Demosthenes. And I have put up a request for Pericles to be displayed on the front page: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Pericles. The description is pretty much the lead of the article with some minor bits cropped, and the very last bit from the Legacy section.--Konstable 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick update. Pericles has been scheduled to appear on the front page on the 18th of September. (See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 18, 2006)--Konstable 01:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Greek History

Thanks for getting back to me. I like the Wikiproject:India paradigm. That should work well. Let me know what you need me to do, and I am in.Argos'Dad 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Μακάρι να μπορούσα να βοηθήσω. Δυστυχώς είμαι σκράπας στην ιστορία. Έχω κλίση στις "θετικές επιστήμες". Ότι έμαθα, το έμαθα εδώ και από την τρέλα μου το έψαξα. Ειδικά για το Μακεδονικό. Στα υπόλοιπα, βάση και με το ζόρι!

Όσο για τις σκέψεις σου, μου αρέσουν. Βασικά, όμως, πρέπει να σου απαντήσω mu για κάποιες από αυτές. Πιστεύω να καταλάβεις. Για τα υπόλοιπα, διάβασε την τρίτη σημείωση στη συζήτησή μου. :-) •NikoSilver• 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for notifying me about this. I am interested!! However it will be a while before I can start helping (exams end October 20). I think that it will not be too hard finding people to help, especially in the ancient and byzantine history parts. I also think that it may be too big a project to undertake (Greece has such a huge story to tell), but if the indians (talk about a huge story...) can do it, so can we. Γιατί στα λέω αγγλικά; Έλα μου ντε... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Βασικά, μπορώ να βοηθήσω ως προς το θέμα της ενημέρωσης χρηστών. Μόλις το ετοιμάσετε, ρίξε μου κάνα σύρμα. Θα έλεγα επίσης να φτιάξετε κάνα ενημερωτικό εβδομαδιαίο ή μηνιαίο μηνυματάκι για τα άρθρα που ξεκινούν και χρειάζονται επέκταση κλπ που θα πηγαίνει σε μια λίστα ενδιαφερομένων. Έχεις παραδείγματα? Δες: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Outreach/Newsletter_August_2006 •NikoSilver• 09:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to join in, and help as much as I can. Proof-reading is something I can deffinitely do, I dont know what else though! Druworos 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Areopagus

Γεια. Δε μου λες, μιας και εισαι δικηγορος, το Court of Cassation (Greece) αναφερεται στον Αρειο Παγο? Δεν μπορω να το εξηγησω διαφορετικα: υπαρχουν τα αρθρα Ανώτατο Ειδικό Δικαστήριο, ΣΤΕ, Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο και τουτο. Μου κανει εντυπωση που το συγκεκριμενο ειναι stub ενω τα υπολοιπα ειναι αρκετα ανεπτυγμενα. Νομιζα οτι ο Αρειος Παγος ειναι πιο σημαντικο δικαστηριο!! Αν οντως προκειται για τον αρειο παγο, πες μου να το προσθεσω στο αρθρο. Ευχαριστω απο τα πριν --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:FR/DP/FD FAC

Hi Yannismarou - I've replied to your points. These are very good observations, but I feel are based on generalizations and wrong perspective. I've given a detailed reply on the FAC page - please check it out. Rama's arrow 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unacessed article category

Hi Yannis, I seem not to able to find the category Category:Unassessed History of Greece articles in the Greek War of Independence when I edit it and therefore I can't remove it. The article has been assessed B-class. Can you let me know how to take the category out? Thanks. Dr.K. 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: WPHOG

Ah, no problem! I originally thought you were just testing something, but then I realized you were creating a set of directories with that image. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: FR/DP/FD

Hi - I apologize for my ignorance in this debate. I did find some good court case examples. Please see these recent edits in which I've added details of some major court cases to different sections of the article. I will continue to search for more examples Rama's arrow 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - I must really apologize for my abject ignorance. Thanks to your insistence, I've gone and uncovered several interesting court cases. Please have a look again at the article. Rama's arrow 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Απάντηση

Γεια, σχετικά με αυτό, θέλω να ξέρεις ότι εγώ δεν έγραψα αυτό, αλλά ένας ανώνυμος χρήστης. Συγνώμη που δεν σου απάντησα αμέσως, αλλά έχω περιορισμένο βικι-χρόνο τώρα, και αναμένεται να έχω για τις επόμενες εβδομάδες. Ήταν πολύ καλή ιδέα να ξεκινήσεις αυτό το πρότζιεκτ και θα συμμετάσχω όποτε μπορώ. Σου συμβουλεύω να ενημερώσεις τον User:Adam Carr και τον User:Deucalionite. Αυτοί είναι από τους χρήστες που έχουν συνεισφέρει πολύ στα άρθρα σχετικά με την ιστορία της Ελλάδας. --Telex 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece

Pos mporw na symmetasxw? Mitsos 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your help in Peer reviews for WikiProject Biography! It's been such a relief having you step up to the plate and helping in this important area! plange 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

link to Persian

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something Persian, please do not link to Persian, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Persian people, Persian language, or Iran, by writing out [[Persian language|Persian]] or [[Iran|Persian]]. Regards, Jeff3000 03:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK! Thanks!--Yannismarou 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BC Page

Yan, please don't bail on the BC page. I'm not asking to duke things out or get in the middle of a war. My request for more editors and eyes was because, as you've seen, there are some "difficult" people working the article.

Please don't think that I'm asking you to take "my" side in the article either. Just having another user stop by, another witness or point of view, to say "I think this is fair and that isn't" really helps to keep things under control and managable on that page.

I'm planning on re-writing the page to conform to the Biography formats you linked. I know that's going to cause yet another war... no matter how hard I try to stop it.

Thanks.Jodyw1 19:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. I really appreciated your kind words on the RfA--it's great to hear nice things about yourself from people you respect.

About Alcibiades, you're right about the length of the lead; I've been writing really long ones recently, for some reason. I'll hopefully have time to go over the whole article soon; what I've seen so far looks rock solid (and an impressive turnaround from the POV morass that the article was a few months ago). I'm a little tied up researching and writing a paper (about the Delian League, actually) this weekend, but I should have some time to spare for everyone's favorite charismatic nobleman in the next few days. I'll (hopefully) have an article for you to look over soon; I'm almost done with an offline rewrite of Theramenes. Looking forward to working with you. --Robth^Talk 03:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant, I see you got straight to work on that; I've uploaded my working draft of the larger article at User:Robth/sandbox2 (what's currently at the article will probably end up as the lead of the finished product); I still have several sections to write, obviously, but I'd be very interested to hear what your sources say about the various historical controversies of his life. --Robth^Talk 07:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point this out to you--check out the new Perseus implementation at http://perseus.uchicago.edu/hopper/. It's got to be two or three times faster, and I haven't hit a server error yet--never again will I have to click refresh five times to read the next section of Diodorus Siculus! I'm going to have to get around to converting all my citations to point to that one of these days. --Robth^Talk 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My rewrite is complete, and I've opened a couple of peer reviews; I ended up having to remove the bits you put into the lead, as Diodorus is considered unreliable for that period, but I did write up an account of T's dramatic last moments for the appropriate section in the article.

I saw that you have not only Alcibiades but also Demosthenes getting ready for a run at FA. It's an exciting time to be writing about Ancient Greece on Wikipedia--I really feel like we're starting to build up some momentum! You should take a look, by the way, at WP:100K--discussion about how to massively increase the number of featured-quality articles we produce; the more input from people who know how to write good articles, the better. Exciting times, all in all. --Robth^Talk 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Demosthenes

This is an impressive piece of work/artwork. It was well crafted and deserve the best recognition. I, however, cannot in any way give you insight as I am not well-versed in Ancient Greece. As for the style, it would probably be well received by the FAC process. Good luck for the rest. Lincher 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Aspasia, more

The quality of the prose in Aspasia was actually quite high; I only had to make a few minor changes (for future reference, I've noticed that you tend to say "thereby" when you mean "thus" or "therefore"; easy ones to confuse, to be sure. Your writing is quite good for a non-native speaker, and the quality of the research I've seen in your articles so far is superb; researching and laying out an article is by far the vast majority of the work; I wouldn't be too concerned about your unfamiliarity with the language imposing limitations on your potential as a contributor; more than anything right now, Wikipedia needs people with the skills to write the well researched and thoughtful articles that must eventually become our standard product, and you have certainly demonstrated that you can do that.

With regards to reviewing FACs, I think your concerns about depth of research are well placed--although I must confess that I myself didn't draw so widely myself before you raised the bar with Pericles; Corinthian War, for instance, relies too heavily on a single modern source. You might be interested by the citation checking project I tried to do a month or so ago. It ended up being too time for me to keep it up, but it was an interesting project while it lasted; checking the quality of references and the accuracy of citations is an important aspect of FAC that gets neglected all too often, which concerns me. The small cross-section I saw while I was doing the spot checks indicated that numerous FAs probably contain at least a few citations that do not point to sources for the statements in the article. Quality of research and accuracy of citations will need to be areas of focus as we look to raise the reliability of the encyclopedia in the months and years to come. --Robth^Talk 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yannis. I felt that the incredible quality of your contributions to Demosthenes, Alcibiades, Aspasia and Pericles deserved a small proof of my gratitude for your work: so let me give you this barnstar. Ciao,--Aldux 14:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For the new featured article Aspasia, and also the magnificent Demosthenes, I, Aldux, award the Epic Barnstar to Yannismarou.

England expects

Please take another look at England expects that every man will do his duty (FAR). I have rewritten and cited the article. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert

Thanks for all the advice on fixing this up - the article looks a lot better, and is much more readable now that most of the quotes have been moved off to side-boxes. Still needs citations, though: Having trouble finding where my books are on him, though, admittedly, I don't have many of the best ones. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is better, but it obviously looks more work. When you are ready, come for another peer-review!--Yannismarou 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Servile War FAC

I've expanded the Aftermath section of the article. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and see if it addresses your expressed concerns. Thanks :) - Vedexent 00:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva

Hi Yannismarou! Thanks for your comments about 10 days ago on the Gilberto Silva article. I have spent a lot of time improving the article based on your (and many other peoples) suggestions. I'd really appreciate it if you could pop over and tell me what you think of the revamped version. (Criticisms are what I love the most...)

Thanks again, and all the best, -GilbertoSilvaFan 17:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Yannismarou. I want to thank you again for the suggestions you left on the Gilberto article, it's the best feedback I've had yet. (Call me a masochist, but I love criticisms...)

I have a question though, it's about your suggestion regarding the Honours section. How do you suggest I change the Honours section into prose? I agree with you that prose is better to read, but isn't the Honours section of any players article always going to be a list? I think that if the section has to be changed into prose, it will be duplicate info, since all the trophies he's won is covered in the main biography. I think if the honours section is in a list, it makes it easier to use as a quick reference, too. Do you have an example of a footballer article where the honours section isn't a list?

I don't normally question advice that I'm given on Wikipedia, but this one instance really made me think. I think the honours section in a players article is very useful (I've used it many times) to quickly see what a player has won in his career. I agree that listy sections aren't recommended, but isn't it rather like a stats section - just a list of data? Anyway, I'd love to know your take on this, and if you know of any more reasons as to why honours sections should be written in prose, I'd love to hear them. I'll happily rewrite it, I'd just like to know your thinking on this.

In the mean time, I'll get rid of the short paragraphs in the Arsenal Career section, lengthen Style of Play, and cite my sources fully. I'll probably write to you again in a week once I'm happy I've completed all those suggestions you've given... so - speak to you soon.

Thanks again, and all the best; -GilbertoSilvaFan 01:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's sound advice. Before I try and get it FA-status I'll get it peer reviewed, and see what some other people think of the honours section. The only football player article which has been featured is Denis Law. He is retired though, so it's a slightly different kind of article. In that article the honours section is a list, but like I say, I'll check what other people think first before taking that as gospel. Also, good idea on the lead text, I'll expand it soon.

Thanks once again - your advice is invaluable =) -GilbertoSilvaFan 07:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello mate, me again. Just letting you know that I've edited Gilberto Silva to reflect the changes you suggested. Here's what I've added specifically,

• Explanded the sentences in the intro text. (If still isn't long enough, what kind of thing would you suggest adding? I'm never sure when it comes to intro-text...)
• Expanded/merged short paragraphs in the Arsenal Career section. I also made it a bit more tale-like :-)
• Vastly expanded Style of Play - and included two printed references

What do you think? Anything missed out? Thanks again, -GilbertoSilvaFan 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the weasel word. I think I may have completely made up the "most pundits" claim. Silly me. I'll delete it.

With regards to the lead text, what kind of thing can I put in there which isn't already there? Stuff about his early life? For example, could I write "Gilberto was raised in a poor family, and as a child he tentatively balanced playing football with various non-footballing jobs."? Or maybe something about his life outside football? Most footballer articles have lead text listing all their various awards and accolades, but Gilberto doesn't have many. I agree that it needs to be expanded though. Maybe a Peer Review will be helpful at this time. Thanks for your help again mate, I really appreciate it. -GilbertoSilvaFan 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A-Class ratings

Just a minor note: while it probably doesn't matter in this case (as the article will hopefully make FA soon), future A-Class ratings really ought go through the review process; it's not going to be very meaningful if people just ignore it. Thanks! :-) Kirill Lokshin 13:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oups!!! You are right!!! I'm really sorry! And I knew that!--Yannismarou 14:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR

Yomangani worked on Transit of Venus - needs another look. Regards, Sandy 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done και μπράβο σου. Politis 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arctic Monkeys

Hi! You commented on the Arctic Monkeys FAC, and I have responded to your comments. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Demosthenes

Actually, Demosthenes would qualify for WP:MILHIST in any case: "Demosthenes fought as a mere hoplite." Please feel free to list him up for peer review at your leisure! :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations

Thanks Yannismarou =) I will come back eventually, but probably not soon. (And I am only here now because I got a harrassment email and had a sudden urge to ban the user who sent it). Good luck with your articles! --Konst.able 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Justinian I

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Justinian I (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 11:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Howdy! First of all, wanted to say thanks for your diligent and consistent peer reviews for WPBIO! This is really needed and makes our project stronger!

On another note, I thought I'd see if you could weigh in over at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources? The debates are going on in several threads there, but it starts with my post (which I posted for the sake of getting the discussion going, not because I agreed with it). Since you're a "citer" like I am, you might want to have a look over there. Cheers! --plange 02:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll co-exist just fine, we simply need to make contributions to that article. It's the Greek wikipedians' fault (myself included) that the article lacks the information that concerns Greek history. I didn't join the project earlier because I thought I wouldn't have time to contribute efficiently, but I'll just do my best. Miskin 22:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Syggnomi gia tin parenoxlisi alla eixa autes tis paragrafous etoimes edo kai poly kairo kai den tis eixa balei epeidi tsakonomoun me ton malaka. Mou fanike aparaitito na tis balo tora gia na apoktisei ena skeleto to arthro. Tha prostheso argotera plirofories pou exo proxeires sxetika me tis genikes leitourgies ton Fanarioton stin autokratoria, kai meta prepei na syggentrothoume sto kommati tis ellinikis epanastasis pou de fainetai katholou sto arthro sou (ektos apo ta teleutaia edits pou ekanes). Euxaristw. Miskin 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, Miskin. No problem. I think we can improve this article.--Yannismarou 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Greece

Thanks for your suggestions and advice. They really help and I appreciate it. I'll take your suggestions into consideration and I'll get started on improving the article. Nice work by the way on articles like Pericles. Thanks. Periklis* 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

FAR noms

Hi Yannis. I've been suggesting to people that they avoid two noms in a single day and try to space them out at least a week or so (we actually just discussed this on FAR talk). This is to avoid over-loading the page and allowing people a chance to give some TLC to each. Marskell 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok! I did not know that.--Yannismarou 18:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I have been reading your contributions to Demosthenes and I just wanted to say ευχαριστώ. This is exactly what Wikipedia is about. Great job! Danny 00:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Review of Demosthenes article

As you requested in your message to me, I read through the latest version of your article on Demosthenes, other than the section "Rhetorical legacy". While I have made some minor changes to correct grammar and spelling and to use more appropriate words, overall I think it reads very well.

I left the section on "Rhetorical legacy" alone as I have no expertise on this subject.

Your article on Demosthenes is easy to follow, informative and thorough. For a person for whom English is not his first language, you have written an excellent and comprehensive article on a very important person in Ancient Greek history. A quality effort. Well done!! --Chaleyer61 13:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Yannismarou, for recreating the article on Demosthenes as fictional character, an article which I originally created. Das Baz 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article medal

		The Featured Article Medal
		I, Robth award Yannismarou the Featured Article Medal for his outstanding featured contributions, Pericles, Aspasia, and Alcibiades—may they be only the beginning of a long list. You've made a big splash around here in just a few months; I can't wait to see what comes next!

Thanks a lot, my friend! And also thanks for the copy-editing in Demosthenes.--Yannismarou 07:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem at all. I'm sure there are many ways of writing it, so don't be too worried about only one 'correct' way. By the way, your new FAC looks brilliant! Very well done. As a mathematics student I am a bit fond of ancient Greece so I'll be looking forward to any future work you do. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert FAC

Ouch... Don't bite! I'm still kind of new. After the peer review, those of us interested really started to make some positive changes on the article, removing the quotes and placing the Wikiquote box. Removing several unnecessary external links. The problem was that since he is such a popular figure right now, we had so many people coming in adding new useless information and nonsense and vandolism that we had to clean up. It turned out that there really weren't as many "serious" wikipedians interesting in doing the grunt work on the article. I understand and completely respect your objections. I would suggest however that in the future you leave comments to the article themselves, because honestly I did take the suggestions seriously and your attack at me I took personally. I think that I've done a great deal of hard work on wikipedia and this was my first article that I had ever submitted for FA candidacy and I personally thought it met the criteria. I didn't know any better. Thank you.--Twintone 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Demosthenes

When an author can't formulate the content of his article in several phrases, it makes a bad impression on me. If you change your lead to something along the lines of Aspasia, I will support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Either you write a really good article or you write an article conforming to your own (questionable) interpretation of the guidelines. I don't compare Demosthenes to Alcibiades, because its lead is also longish and I would state my objections, if I had looked into WP:FAC more often. If you really think that a lead can't be cut in half and call my suggestions "not actionable", it only shows that you are not interested in my vote. You have a lot of them without me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron Maiden FAR

Could you give me a little advice on the lead? I know the cites could be used in the legacy section, but would the actual info still be used there and so on? I'm really no good with lead sections, so I'm unsure how to make it concise and to the point.

As concerns the Mick Wall book I'm using, I'm using the 2001 edition and not the 2004 one, so won't the page numbers cause confusion? Just a thought. LuciferMorgan 22:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody will keep changing it to the latest edition, whereas I'm using the 2001 edition. I hate editors who blindly change book refs to the latest edition. LuciferMorgan 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes

I've broken the rule, and I'll deal with the consequences. IMO, your comments on the 3RR reports page and on mine are ill-adjusted, unfair, and irrelevant, as irrelevant as your reasons for providing the link. I stick by this opinion, and I note that several users dislike this system per the wikipedia conventions you "cite". Dahn 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Einai anypoforos. An tyxei na eimai online kai yparksei problima tha epembo. An thes pantos anafere kai tin parabasi ton tria rho pou eixe kanei mazi mou prin mia ebdomada. Tou tin eixa xarisei tote alla to metaniono tora epeidi blepo pos den katalabainei me to kalo. Afiste ton na kanei osa rv thelei, apo do ki empros tha ton kataggelnoume se kathe eukairia, mexri na katalabei oti den mporei na kanei tou kefaliou tou. Miskin 10:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Kai pshfisa kai ola kala. Efage oktw writses o typos gia na isiwsei. Den ton antexw allo oute egw. Koita to talk mou gian na katalabeis ti trabh3a. Gia na stamathsei, anagkasthka kai "ekleisa" th syzhthsh san pshfoforia! •NikoSilver• 19:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an English-language project, so please use English. Since (ab)use of other languages on talk pages has been reprimanded in the past, I request you to provide translation of the messages posted above. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I assumed it was not your intention to use your talk page for hosting what looks like conspirational activities, but your defiant response seems to prove that I was wrong. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did I call you a "conspirator", I would like to know. Stalking me and throwing wanton accusations does not seem very helpful. Although I have very little desire in prolonging my interaction with you, I move the topic to WP:VPP, so that uninvolved people could comment on the issue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's be friends and assume good faith. I did not want to offend you and you need not react so nervously to any criticism. You should be aware that I neither side with Dahn nor with you in this conflict. Actually, I did not write anything about Romanians but I started a couple of articles about Greeks. I hope that our misunderstandings are the past. When you will be preparing a new FA, please let me know; perhaps I will be of some help (perhaps not :). Good luck, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad you two sorted this out! •NikoSilver• 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraklion Archaeological Museum

While working on Prinias earlier today, I noticed that we have the articles about Heraclion and Iraklion Archaeological Museum. I don't see why the name of the same city should be spelled differently, since it's kind of confusing. I urge Greek wikipedians, especially those savvy in translietration rules, to sort out the mess. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas FAC

I've replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dallas, Texas. drumguy8800 C T 19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Enjoy your Wikibreak - you've earned it - and repost this wherever you think it fits. Regards, Durova 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		I, Durova award you the Barnstar of National Merit for four featured articles that relate to Greek history. Durova 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

I can't get an answer from Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome and seeing your a member I wanted to ask you if the Cretan War is part of the project? Kyriakos 10:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ. Και εύχομαι ότι έχεις καλό καιρό στη Μύκονο. Οι Κυκλάδες είναι εξαιρετικοί. Γεια από μένα. Kyriakos 11:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cretan War is up for A-class review on WP:MILHIST if you want to comment. Kyriakos 03:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Γειά σου, Γιάννη. Ο Κρητηκός Πόλεμος πέρασε το Α-class Review και σε λίγο καιρό θα το βάλω σε FA. Τι νομίζεις οτί πρέπει να κάνω πριν να το βάλω σε FΆ; Kyriakos 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Yannismarou, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for article Ilaiyaraaja

Dear Wikipedian, thank you for your peer review and constructive comments for the this Wiki[1]. I'm a newbie but your suggestion to view WP:LEAD and so on are very helpful and particularly precise (which was exactly the sort of comments I've been looking for!) in guiding me improve the article. Cheers. 130.102.0.178 07:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Greece

Thanks for your welcome! Jeffklib 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

West Bengal FAC

Please see the reply of your comment in West Bengal FAC. Is that what you meant? Or do you point towards some technical problem/ expired webpage reference? Thanks for the comment. I shall try to fix the problem. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the excellent observation. I have included page numbers/ranges, as applicable, in all cases except one (I have explained that in the FAC). Please have a look in case something has been overlooked. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...but I'd prefer it if you'd drop one "citation needed" tag (only joking). Cheers, Yomangani^talk 16:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Would like to hear from the front lines

Hi Y -- At peer review discussion, I posted a query about modifying the "peer review request." Since you are on the front lines of those doing the peer reviews and would benefit most from the request I posted, I think it important to have your opinion regarding this suggestion. If know any of the others doing the peer review, please ask them to give their opinion as well. Thanks. -- Jreferee 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Weird Al" Yankovic

Just wondering, when you get some free time, if you could re-review the Weird Al article, since I like to think there's been some rather big changes since you reviewed it a few days ago. Could you please leave comments on the Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic page, please? Thanks a lot for reviewing the article and your comments in the first place! Also, good luck with the exams. ~ Gromreaper 04:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. The article is up for featured article status, and your comments on the nomination would be greatly appreciated. ~ Gromreaper 07:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And again! I've sourced some statements on the "Songs" section as you requested on the FAC page. ~ Gromreaper 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!! ~ Gromreaper 09:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful review of Mitt Romney. Your experienced outside views will be helpful for the many editors involved with this article. Yellowdesk 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I regret that you received the hostile comments from Michael16G in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney. There may be as many as 20 active editors on this article, and I was not appreciative of how adversarial some of the editors are to suggested changes content or tone in the article. I can assure you that your comments will be useful for modifying the article. But it certainly would be easier if the article did not have partisan defenders of Mitt Romney. I also appreciate that you voluntarily spend time and energy carefully thinking about this and other articles you have no stake in, and respect that you participate in this helpful way. Thank you. Yellowdesk 04:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

John Dee

I've expanded the stubby sections slightly and put some more citations in (and admitted defeat on one which I had to rewrite). Can you have a look and see if you still think it is missing anything. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 02:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense; citation is confirmed. In-line citation is one way to accomplish it. I have used footnotes quite liberally myself, and introduced them to articles which did not have them. But what has happened to John Dee has been largely, (and in the case of Casaubon, entirely) a waste of your time, mine, and Yomangani's: the one resource Wikipedia is short of.

If all this tended to improve Wikipedia, or even cure FA of its proven preference for tendentious articles with lots of pretty pictures, it might be worth it. But it does not; articles with footnotes at every semicolon are mostly the result of citation wars, and come in two main classes: those in which it is still on-going, which are unstable; and one where one side has prevailed, which are mostly trash.

I believe we should write good articles, not Good Articles; and I regret the effort wasted on earning a {{GA}} tag, which is in my experience an almost infallible sign of a pretentious Bad Article.

On another note, this is not, of course, personal. Therefore I should warn you that I may use Pericles as an example of another bad citation practice: Plutarch is not a secondary source for us; in the words of WP:ATT, he is a source "requiring expert interpretation." Unfortunately, Pericles, because it is so thoroughly footnoted, is the best example of these I know; if you can find me another, I will use it instead. Septentrionalis 15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bio peer review

You asked me to let you know when ready. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Prem_Rawat#Edits_completed_as_per_peer_review. Many thanks for your help on this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Opening of the Fifth Seal, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While you're around...

Could you take another quick look at Pope Pious? I'll close it while I'm on-line, if you feel Savidan's changes are sufficient. Marskell 18:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it can wait until you're satisfied. He had done some citation work today, so I thought your points might have been taken care of. Marskell 19:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Etiquitte question

As a fairly new Wiki editor, I am curious as to how to react when someone--with the best of intentions--makes a major edit to an article I am working on without discussing it first. I reverted it, and politely told them on their talk page why I did so. But it really irritates me when someone changes the layout and order of entire sections, to the point that it leads to confusion. Can I tell them not to do it, or just revert again if it happens again? Thanks. Jeffpw 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• It was my Baker article, but the situation resolved itself quite nicely:). Someone else came along and backed up my point of view, so no editing war occurred (which was a concern of mine). Thanks for your response. Jeffpw 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeffpw has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thank you for your support of my article. Jeffpw 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Walls of Constantinople

Hello Yannis! I have been working on expanding the article on the Walls of Constantinople recently, and have put it up for a peer review. I would be glad to have your input on it! Regards, Cplakidas 10:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Yannismarou. I just wanted to say thanks for all your help with the Gilberto Silva article. You've been very helpful and particularly encouraging with helping me to find my feet in the Wikipedia community. If everyone around here was as accommodating as you, Wikipedia would have a lot more users! I'll stick around to nominate the Gilberto article for a front page slot, then do a spoken version of the article, then I'll be off. I'll message you before I leave though, so I'll speak to you soon. Good luck with all your exams - don't work too hard ;-) Thanks again, -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography peer review of Pat Buchanan

Thanks for your comments in the peer review of Pat Buchanan. I agree 100% with your comments, and had previously tried to convince the other editors of that article of the same things, particularly regarding the excessive length and quotes. However the two other active editors on the page are very resistant to removing material, especially quotes. One has just expressed explicit disagreement with the contention that the article should be pruned down/prosified at all. Do you have any suggestions about how I can negotiate this, or where else I might go for help to improve the article? Sorry to impose, and thanks again for your review! Schi 10:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Late, but necessary

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions, for your NPOV, for Pericles, for Aspasia, for Alcibiades, for Demosthenes, and most importantly, for the creation and maintenance of WikiProject History of Greece. •NikoSilver• 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Glynn Lunney

Thank you again for your comments and suggestions on my Glynn Lunney article. I have now put it up as a FAC, and would welcome your comments there too. Best of luck with your exams. MLilburne 11:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell peer review - thank you!

A heartfelt thank you for your extremely detailed and considered feedback via peer review. I am so grateful to you for taking the time, particularly given your exams. Good luck! Greycap 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Yannismarou 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

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

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

Phanariotes

It seems that I took so long getting back from my real-life obligations that you've now been called away by your own--good luck with your exams! I have posted some proposals to Talk:Phanariotes; take a look and see what you think. --Robth^Talk 05:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Please see my reply in my talk page. Nat91 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Countries of Europe

The poll was clearly premature (and this is why much comment has now moved to the comment section following), and in addition, many "votes" were (and still are) being made under false assumptions. Things had to be sorted out. You also might want to note that polls on Wikipedia are generally not "votes", but are a place to let your voice be heard—so if what you say needs clarification, followup, etc., it's really not a problem to add comments. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my voice has to be well-grounded and if I think I said something wrong, I do have to change my words and my reasoning.--Yannismarou 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

El Greco

From User talk:Ham

Thanks for your comments in the peer-review of El Greco. You'll see I've reorganized the material per your suggestions. I want your opinion for the changes. I just did not yet changed the title of "Works". This section deals mainly with the attribution problems, but my initial goal was to create a section speaking about the total number of his paintings, drawings and sculptures as attributed by modern scholars. Starting the research for the section, I saw this interesting diachronical debate about the attributions and I analysed it.

I thought if it would be useful to keep the title of the section "Works" and create two subsections: "Attribution debate" (the current section) as you suggested and a new sub-section "Largest Collections". But I don't know if this last sub-section is really necessary. I first though to name this article "Notable Works" (like in Salvador Dali), but I think it wouldn't be useful to create a list of works already mentioned most of them in previous sections. I also thought about speaking in this section about some of the El Greco's works auctioned off during the last two decaded (most of which bought by Greek museums, municipalities etc.) But again I'm not sure if this is necessary. And then I though about this "largest Collection", treating El Greco's works whereabouts in general once again inspired by the last two paragraphs of the "Notable Works" section in Dali. But again I did not yet implement it, wondering if a section saying that "most of his works are in Spain at X and Z museum", "Outside Spain the biggest collection is in Washington", "The Greek Gallery bought the B and the C painting and now has the A+B+C" etc. is really useful.

So, my real concern, if I haven't make myself yet clear, is to make the "Works" section to be really a "Works" section treating the whole spectrum. I hope I did not confuse you much! But I'd really like to have some feedback and your opinion. Cheers!--Yannismarou 11:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Much improved; I can see that you have great plans for this article! The division into 'Life', 'Art' and 'Legacy' makes for a clearer and less jumpy read. The idea of discussing where El Greco's works have ended up is a good one, but I would think the best place for that is in Posthumous artistic reputation. If the largest body of his work outside Spain is in the Washington NGA, founded as late as 1937, that must say something about how he has fared in artistic and intellectual fashions. It probably doesn't merit a section on its own – more like a paragraph. Works as a section title sounds to me as if it should be a sub-section of Art, so I am still in favour of a change (IMO, it shouldn't be slotted into the Art section, which is broadly about style, as Works is really about historiography). A section titled Questions of attribution or some such would still be fitting if your ultimate aim is for that section to discuss "the total number of his paintings, drawings and sculptures as attributed by modern scholars". All the best, [talk to the] HAM 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)