User talk:Aldux/Archive 2

Macedonians

U are right,it was an official symbol.but u have also removed were the symbol was discovered and the fact that it is not related to the slavic cultures,since it was used before the appearance of the slavs in the region.why?--Hectorian 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok,i am not blaming u...i thought that u just had not noticed that(i saw the articles u have worked on,and i know u did not do that deliberately).btw,it was not my edit.well,we call this area Macedonia,not northern greece-there is no sort of claim there.Ciao:-)--Hectorian 16:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a link to show u the reduction of the population of Chios during the past 5 decades [1]

Well done!that's the source;-)if u ever need anything concerning greece(ancient or modern-i've seen u have an interest particulary in ancient),don't hesitate asking me.Ciao--Hectorian 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting short translation

I'm working on translating a biography from Italian to English, in order to write a featured article. If possible, can you please translate just this paragraph:

Avevano grandi dipendenze in Anghiari, siccome in terra posta a poche miglia dal loro seggio, perciò il Maggi, uomo toscano, cercava di farsi in Chiapino, principalissimo di suo casato e soldato di Cosimo, un saldo appoggio in Corte di Firenze; a lui pertanto volgevasi il giovane poeta, lui colmando di lodi, nonchè Giovanni delle Bande Nere e l'avven-turoso suo figlio, che salendo sul trono di Firenze aveva incarnata quell'idea, alla quale in lieta ed avversa fortuna non aveva mai cessato di rivolgere ogni sua mira. Ne'cinque canti il Maggi (vero versificatore del secolo XVI) lagnasi della trista sua sorte, mostrando quanto scontento fosse dell'avvocatura da lui esercitata per mero bisogno.

Thanks for your help :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 05:03

• Question: Is the "Court of Florence" a court of law, or a court of royalty/nobility? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-17 03:22

Macedonian issues

Hello Aldux. I'm a new user but I noticed your edits in the Macedonians article and I want to thank you for your contribution and constructive attitude. That being said I don't doubt your neutrality and well intentions. But I must tell you that I dont agree with you on two points:

• The use of the term "Slavophones" for the Macedonians of Slavic descend in Greece.

The term is not percise and one consequence could be that they can be mistaken for Bulgarians. Also they dont see themselves as "Slavophones" but as Macedonians. In my view they should at least be reffered as Slavophone Macedonians in Greece. I belive this should be acceptable to the Greek users also, because they should at least accept it in the geographical sense - they are Macedonians, because they live in Macedonia

• The inclusion of: "It should be noted that Census data in European countries often does not take into account what ethnicity immigrates from the Republic of Macedonia, as is the case with Italy and Germany"

I no longer dispute this being a fact, because I'm not aware how exactly this is done in Italy and Germany. However I think it is unnecesary to include it because it is already mentioned that numbers for Italy and Germany reffer to citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, when theese two countries are mentioned below. This way it's being mentioned twice. In similar articles such things are not mentioned at all. There is no mention even of such significant coumunities as the Turkish Kurds in Germany, the Serbian Roma in Germany and Italy and so on and so on. This way we make even more exeptions in the Macedonians article wich then serve for negating the existance of the Macedonian people.

I'd be gratefull for your opinions on this matters. Regards --Realek 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Well straight to busines this time :)

• I agree that the use of "Slavic" can be more apropriate in the first sentance about greece: Greece adopted strongly repressive policies towards the Slavic population in its northern regions. But in the rest of the text we shoud talk specifically about the Macedonians not the Bulgarians. So there is no need to talk about the whole slavophone population in Greece. The issues of the Bulgarian portion of this population should be adressed in the Bulgarians article. I would agree that only in the case of Greece "slavophone" could be added in front of Macedonians to differentiate from Greeks living in the Macedonia region. Would you agree to this?
• I agree with you that most of the people articles are ridden with nationalisms of the worst sort. I do not object to the inclusion of the paragraf per se. What bothers me is that the Macedonians article doesn't follow the standards used in the other "people articles". This gives "ammunition" to the negators of the very existance of Macedonians. But it's a more accurate article with the paragraph included so I wont object to it anymore.

Regards --Realek 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Link policy

Hi. I did not know about that policy about my Britanical link. Can you point me to where it says that a link, such as to Britanica, can not be used unless it's a free link, even though its available free as a cached on a google search?Giovanni33 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Aldux. For those that do not have an account with Britannica, the trick to seeing the full cached version free is simply to use Google and enter in its search: Eusebius Of Caesarea. Encyclopædia Britannica. It should pull up as the first entry, I believe, and it will be the full article. If I give you a link directly, you will get the partial view only. Giovanni33 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 Chad Presidential Election

Sucks, but what the hey. 2006 Chad Presidential Election. KI 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Adana

Hi Aldux. Would you be able to help me out on Adana? The guy keeps reverting. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi!I tried in Adana to show that the sources provided could not be used in the article.however,i did not revert the whole article,for fear that this would lead to one more edit-war.but,i guess u are right...it's no use trying to explain to nationalists...If u have any source about that(the french source u mentioned)it would be nice to provide it,so that the chances of reverting the massacre will be limited.Regards--Hectorian 23:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking you up on your offer :)

From French to English for the 2006 Coup article. KI 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians

Aldux,with all respect to your POV and your knowledge in the matter and your good will,i would like to point that RoM had indeed irrendistic claims over greece,since they printed maps showing that their country should extend to Olympus and since they used symbols from the greek region of macedonia as official(not only the Vergina Sun,but also the White Tower in Thessaloniki).also,they had an article in their constitution talking about protection of 'Macedonians' in neighbouring countries,which could also be seen as interfering in other states' issues.furthermore,their official education system teaches them that they are descendants of the ancient macedonians who happen to be slavicized,that's why i am insisting so much in making this distinction clear in the article.what is obvious to u(that the ancient macedonians were a different people) is not to them.ciao--Hectorian 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not true Hectorian.

• The maps are not printed by the Republic of Macedonia, but publishers I guess. I have one of theese maps and funny thing it was printed in Bulgaria. Would you accuse them of irredentistic claims over Greece? Anyway since Greek users tend to claim how powerfull Greece is and how week Macedonia is; and how Greece is going to impose its will on its neighbour using all this power, you can't be really serious about the territorial claims. Surely you can find loonies in any country, but note that Macedonia never claimed any neghbour's territory (unlike most of the countries in the region during the 90s). I would like to add that the maps are more like historic maps. Macedonia shown on them is Macedonia how the Macedonian revolutionaries (you would say Bulgarian revolutionaries, but that way you would accuse Bulgaria) thought the Country should be like. So - is a map of Austo-Hungary today a territorial claim threathening all the countries around?
• Many countries have in their constitution an article like that. In the region Albania has it, Serbia has it (probably Bulgaria has it and the others also...). Only Macedonia was pressured to remove it. Now I personally think that it was pressured to remove it because of Greek attempts to negate the existance of a slavophone Macedonian minority in Greece, NOT because it was actually a claim over territory. But that is just my oppinion - the fact is that it was removed more than 10 years ago and it is irrelevant now.
• Simply not true. But they should teach the mixing theory in my oppinion --Realek 02:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek:

• If the maps were historic,they wouldn't show Albania,cause the state of Albania was established in 1913.If a publisher printed such maps here or elsewhere in europe,he would be seen as(at least) a dreamer by state,media and people.on the contrary,u said yourself that u have such a map.and if this is not enough to convince u about the claims that u have,take a look at your fellow citizens' userpages and the maps and materials they have added there.Once more u reply to only what is convinient to u...no mention about the symbols again...:)
• Greece doesn't have such an article,and i doubt if the others have either.The slavophone minority in greece prints its own magazines and has its own political party.do not forget that it was FYROM in a state of almost war some years ago cause of its 'respect' to the albanian minority.
• Lastly and in brief,i have watched documentaries from your country's schools and also the books.so,don't tell me that u are not taught that u are descendants of the ancient macedonians.at least other users from your country have admitted that.--Hectorian 02:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I could write a book proving you wrong but Aldux page is not the place for it. It was my mistake to confront you here and I appologise. So I'll be as brief as possible:

• Suppose you are right. Macedonia still wont be able to be any threat to the territorial integrity of Greece. So leave it alone.
• Suppose you are right. It has been removed because of Greece's demand. So leave it alone.
• Suppose you are right. Greeks have not any more right to teach that in their schools but you don't object to that. So leave it alone.

And I couldnt stay silent toy your dragging of the unrelated issue of albanian minority rights in all this. They had substantial minority rights before 2001, and now they have a lot more, making Macedonia a world pioneer in a lot of areas of minority rights (If you wish I'll explain this on your page). Greece on the other side allows the Macedonians to organize politicaly and to print a magazine... WOW! Anyway those things are not minority rights at all - but basic human rights. And they have been allowed to do this only recently. Yes - Greece is a shining example of Democracy! --Realek 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And you're a shining example of the power of propaganda in post-communist regimes. Miskin 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

• I have provided references on the term "Greek Macedonians", as well as its arithmetic superiority over the Slavs on the south-central parts of the region. So that you know that my edits are based on sourced information.
• Secondly, why did you remove the disambig sentence in "History of Italy"? It's normal to disambiguate between history of the country and history of the region. Britannica for example has two different articles respectively. Miskin 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• • So you don't understand; I said that no Greek Macedonian ethnicity exists separated from Greek ethnicity; and we should list people, not regional identities.
  • This article is on all Italy not only the peninsula, which is only part of historical and present Italy; it excludes continental Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Also, Italy has been multi-ethnic only before 2000 years ago; after that non-latin minorities have always been demographically marginal. Also, Italy came to be perceived as more than a geographic expression already by the latin authors; and already in the late republic all inhabitants of Italy were roman citizens. So no, the history of Italy is not the history of united Italy and neither of a simple geographic area.--Aldux 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely a POV Aldux. Italy remained multiethnic until at least 11th century AD (don't forget the Gothic, Lombard, Byzantine and Norman settlements). I know that Latin authors (I think Cicero) spoke of a unified Italy as back as 200BC, but that was not realistic. The proof is the Italian Greek and Celtic siding with Hannibal during the 2nd Punic war. In my opinion a culturally unified Italy is born with Dante, but I'm not gonna argue on this, it's none of my concerns. I insist and I will insist on keeping the term "Greek Macedonians", in the way that I'd keep "Cretan Greek" or "Asian Greek". I'm not aware of a wp policy which enforces the listing of nationalities over regional identities. I feel that it's important to prevent the Slavic crowd's attempt on a monopoly of the name, if for no good reason, because such monopoly would enforce implied land-claims (as described in User:Macedonia's personal page). Furthermore, I think that my theory is verified by the very Slavic editors' persistence on hiding such terms from public view. I know that what you want in to prevent edit-wars. I for once, am not willing to back up because of the chauvinist edit-wars the MacSlavs are capable of starting. They'll revert afew times and then it'll stop. After all, it's sourced. Miskin 19:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Caro Aldux. Mi dispiace che non ho avuto il tempo di risponderti nella talk, ma sono in Romania e non ho tempo al momento (guarda qua sotto che ora c'é scritto!) Ho visto che i miei altri amici Greci hanno lavorato tanto su questo messaggio (e anche tu dovrai faticare per correggerlo). Scusa se uso l'italiano (povero), ma devo praticarlo perché sarrebe un pecato dimenticarlo (ma in effetti lo uso molto qui in Romania per communicare con tutti quelli che non parlano bene l'inglese). Volevo anche dirti che sarebbe molto gentile da parte tua se potessi correggere questo messaggio per poter analizzare i miei errori usando la storia. Ritornerò alla fine di questa settimana e penso che avrò del tempo per discutere con te. Tuo amico (in qualche bataglie)  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Grazie tanto! Ti prego di continuare la nostra discussione in Italiano (non per ordire una "cospirazione", ma per pratica). Naturalmente, non devi correggermi sempre (perché ...non posso pagarti per il corso :-)). Ho messo una risposta nella talk. NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ciao Niko, ho letto la tua risposta a Macedonians. Non credo che in sè un nome come Nuova Macedonia sarebbe offensivo per gli slavomacedoni, ma ha il difetto di essere completamente nuovo, cioè di non avere nessuna sanzione ufficiale da nessuna delle parti in causa. E comunque la Repubblica di Macedonia non ha nulla da guadagnare ad accettare, in quanto sanno che il tempo sta giocando a loro favore, in particolare da quando gli Americani hanno optato per RoM anziché su FYROM; e le azioni degli Americani tendono a determinare spesso e volentieri quelle degli altri. Inoltre, non fosse altro che per semplicità, i giornali, almeno italiani, usano sempre Macedonia o Republica di Macedonia, e mai FYROM (ti dico solo che io non so neanche come dire esattamente il nome ONU, FYROM, in italiano, da quanto è raro l'uso). Comunque non sono un profeta, e dunque puoi consolarti pensando che potrei sbagliarmi ;-) Ciao--Aldux 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Orontid Dynasty

Can you please look at this when you may please: Orontid Dynasty--Eupator 18:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

hello Aldux

I 'm going to insist too. The name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a name accepted by UN, IMF etc. On many articles here, we use sometimes (for various reasons) the name of a redirect, and the articles about (Greek) Macedonia is clearly such a case. talk to +MATIA 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move for Roman Catholic Church

If you read my case, you would see that it not only responds to your claim that moving to Catholic Church would be POV, but it also demonstrates how keeping the article at Roman Catholic Church is inherently POV. I wish people would extend the courtesy of considering my case. There's already precedent for this problem at other possibly "ambiguous" articles like Church of Christ, United Church of Christ, International Churches of Christ, and Church of Christ (Mormonism). I respectfully ask you to reconsider. --Hyphen5 00:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem

If you want a fun AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination) - I haven't voted there, as either way, half the people will hate me. I think the most blatant examples of sockpuppetry are at Rajput - check the revision hisotry back 250 edits ;-) There, obvious socks roam, such as RendezvousSingh and on the talk page, the blatant sock Medicine Man (talk · contribs · block log). Of course, they all were summarily banned in the end. --Latinus 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Favore No

Please, don't report Kagan. Ti prego perche credo che se lo fai, le resultate non sarrano compatibile con il "spirito" de la regola WP:3RR.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 01:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was late, but from your comment at WP:AN3#User:Adkagansu, I see I wouldn't be able to change your mind. Evidently, there were more things than the 3RR to it...  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 01:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Credo che la notificazione di L era un modo diplomatico per effetuare il blocco (informiando gli altri -comme te) senza iniziarlo lui (mio messagio -a lui, non a te- aveva quasi la stessa intenzione)! Nessun e obligato di rapportare un 3rr. Alora, non c'e niente per irritarti. Anche, se non e cosi, sotto WP:IAR, questo non e punibile!

Volevo chiedere tuo opinione su questo (ultimo paragrafo). Anche, nessuno a risposto su questo.

Ciao professore (per mio italiano)! ;-]  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pensi tu, che sostegno le azioni de mio paese indiscriminatamente, senza giudicare cio che e giusto e cio che e sbagliato? Loro? Per questo tipo di nazionalizmo nuovo che ho scritto, che pensi? Credo che ci sono tanti utenti in WP, che credono che sono liberali, ma in effeto sono naivi strumenti di loro chi sono i piu grandi crypto-nazionalisti desiderando renderci tutti identici.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. Non lo credevo, era una domanda retorica. Per favore guarda come il "nuovo-tipo-di-nationalismo" impazza alla talk dell'articolo per FYROM (gli "impartial third"). Guarda che gli altri non accettano di includere il nome che loro paese a accettato da UN, alla introduzione del articolo. Guarda che risposte danno quando dico che anche questo nome conta é deve essere presentato in maniera quasi-uguale. Aiuto, non ne posso piu!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Non e una cospirazione, ma sembra comme una epidemia. Hai dimenticato uno utente che dice che e di noi, ma vive "a l'altra parte de lo lago". Il suo nome commincia di 'E'. Ha fatto tutto per lasciare l'articolo cosi, senza indicazione de lo secondo nome ufficiale a la testa, e con un piccolissimo link allo section per la disputa di nome. Credo che lui non e de la terza categoria, comme le ho scritto alla fine dei miei argumenti, ma da la prima! Ti dico un secreto: sonno anch'io d'accordo con la versione di ChrisO. Quante volte devi chiedere di piu, per prendere di meno (si chiama diplomatia -e e una parola greca). Aspetiamo il fino di questa comedia...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR and more

What Miskin and Latinus are doing on the Ottoman Empire page is vandalism. I made my point to them for 2-3 hours and yet still they are doing the same redundant edit again and again. It is harassment, it is vandalism. Multi-ethnic empire is redundant, they are making the article look like it was written by a retard.

Look at Miskin's last edit:

"fark) (geçmiş) . . Ottoman Empire; 00:16 . . Miskin (Talk | Katkılar) ('Turkish empire' is misleading the reader, stop denying factual information) "

He/she doesn't even know Ottoman is not a word like "USA" or "UK", it is just the name of the founder of the empire who was Osman/Ottoman Bey, a Turkish bey; empire being named after its founder in the tradition of previous Turkish empire, the Seljuks. And Turkish Empire is used as much as the Ottoman [2], [3], [4], [5]

Google search results for Turkish Empire:

Web turkish empire için yaklaşık 9.970.000 sonuçtan 1 - 10 arası sonuçlar (0,17 saniye)

Now I'll assume you have good faith and expect you will put these into consideration before threatening me for breaking rules, just because someone told you so. Good day.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good for you.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I compiled the first paragraph according to some encyclopedic sources that I had available, in order to replace and not just remove their old racist section. The second paragraph was already there, and I changed it around in order to not completely remove their previous edits, but I'm sure nobody will miss it if we take it off. We'll edit around the first paragraph, what's important is we have removed the previous racist content. Regards. Miskin 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC) If you need help with this issue, I can assist you Aldux.--Moosh88 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't take Kagan too seriously, he does this all the time. I hope you find an improvement after my latest edits in 'Italian people'. I tried to focus the section on settlements patterns rathern than pseudo-science. I also tried to point out that despite dialectic or linguistic variation, the bulk of the population (Latin or not) descended from the ancient settlers. Ethnic articles are being subjected to significant bias. The 'Spanish people' is also at a really bad condition, but I don't see how it can be saved without a total rewrite. Miskin 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering,Aldux.i saw the changes in Italian people and the comment on Miskin's talk page.i generally agree with what u said, but i want to note 2 things: the Byzantine Greeks used Latin for administration purposes, as they did in greece and anatolia, but they revived the greak-speaking communities(Griko)-perhaps the byzantines are the reason that this language has survived till today-.and secondly, about the Illyrians that u said.in southern italy,when the greeks arrived,were of course italian peoples,but not illyrians.maybe u are talking about the Messapian language(but it has not proven to be connected with the illyrian).Cheers! --Hectorian 18:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What I wanted to add is that Latin was at an intellectual level a dead language in the Eastern Empire and Constantinople from as early as the 5th century BC (Justinian was forced to write Novellae in Greek). It survived as the language of administration as late as the early 7th century where Heraclius replaced it with Greek. The Byzantine soldiers and officials in Southern Italy and Sicily probably didn't know a word in Latin. This doesn't imply that there was an influx of Greek population coming from Byzantium, but it explains the long-term survival of Greek speaking communities in Souther Italy (11th c.) and Sicily (9th c.). This is not something I'm making up, nor adding in order to emphasize greek presence in Italian history, it was actually mentioned in the sources that I used in order to compile that paragraph. If you think however that it is not too relevant to the section, we can always remove it. The second paragraph as I said earlier, is a re-write of an existing edit which I kept in order to reduce the chances of edit-wars. We can completely remove it as soon as things cool down. Miskin 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the term "Hellene" that Byzantinists and Byzantines would refuse, not the term 'greek'. If you look at any medieval european text you'll never find the Byzantines to be called anything other than Greeks. Miskin 23:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, have a look on how your Florentine ancestors viewed the "Byzantines" [6] Miskin 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkmens

Could you please stop that!!! Why are you trying to minimalize the numbers without proof?!!! Inanna 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We have already given the both governments'(US and Turkey) figures and had found a solution.Italians in US can't speak italian also but their population are still 16 millions...Inanna 23:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We have shown 700,000(which US government says) - 5 millions(Turkish government says).If you just read it, you'll see.You don't have a source about that and your tolerance against Turks are not out business...Inanna 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh Please, you (Inanna) are one of the biggest POV pushers on wiki. I suggest you clean up your act before telling others to do so.--Moosh88 23:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Orontids

Thanks for the help. I agree with you, it appears that the dynasty itself began much later and previous rulers just carried the same name. Moses of Chorene speaks of a certain Yervand Sakavakyats who is regarded as the first Orontes by nationalists but there is no historical proof. His name is interesting though, especially the Saka (Scythian?) part.

Artasyras, the King’s Eye, brought the news of Prince Cyrus' death to Artaxerxes II, and Artasyras's son Orontes who had been present (and perhaps distinguished himself) at the Battle of Kounaxa and was given Rhodogunde the daughter of Artaxerxes II and made Satrap of Armenia. In the late 380s after Persia had suffered serious reverses in Egypt, Orontes was recalled from Armenia to head the Persian army while Tiribazes commanded at sea. They quarreled and their case went before a court of four Persian nobles who found for Tiribazes with Orontes being disgraced and dismissed from his position as Satrap of Armenia.

In the 360s BCE several of the Persian Satraps revolted and chose Orontes as their leader. However he betrayed them to the King and made peace with General Ochus. Orontes was then reappointed as Satrap of Armenia and became the founder of the autonomous Armenian Orontid dynasty. Direct descendants of the Orontid dynasty included the medieval Georgian dynasty, one of whom was the famous Queen Tamara, co-ruler from 1178 and sole ruler from 1184, and who has many present day descendants.

From: 1 --Eupator 18:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA

Thanks!

Hi Aldux/Archive 2, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aldux...

I have noticed that you deliver some well considered inputs to articles and talk page, to which I owe your respect. As far as I know, you have not been involved in talks about how to deal with the Kurdish issue. So as a respected outsider, I would appreciate if you have the time to take a look at the debate on Batman, Turkey. The dull city with the exciting name is the battlefield for a rather far reaching debate about how to deal with ethnic minorities, that are not recognized by the state they live in. I would appreciate some comments from one fresh to the problem and experienced in controversial debates. Bertilvidet 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Chad general dies in rebel battle

They killed Déby's nephew - the head of the army - now it's only a matter of time before they get Déby himself. KI 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A vandal?

You said here: added categories inserted by vandal; it's up to Bomac and no other to modify or add to his user page. Actually, I was reverting that Kamikaze guy or something + adding the info that Bomac's living in the Republic of Macedonia. While it may be a bit out of taste to edit Bomac's user page - I've inserted a category which is a known fact, and hardly a vandalist act, since I doubt that Bomac (who, BTW, is my friend, and a fellow bureaucrat on the Macedonian Wikipedia), would be anyhow offended by that. However, I agree with your second conclusion. This is the first time that somebody said that I was a vandal :-(. --FlavrSavr 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, the barnstar was unexpected, too! Thanks a lot! :-) --FlavrSavr 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

french

Hello Aldux. I need some help with translating from french. I had noticed that the fr of Macedon has info that the en lacks and I could use a hand at Scanderbeg. Please let me know if you could help. Thanks. talk to +MATIA 09:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Scholars"

If you have to have a credential in order to judge the quality of information, what are you doing at Wikipedia? Who said you had the right to decide what should and shouldn't be included in a compendium of knowledge?

I can tell you've had this fight before, and so have I--I have nothing but disdain for the idea that only people who work in colleges have ideas that are worth anything. Nareek 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bagoas (courtier)

I do not know what is the problem in that article, or if the etymology should or not should be included. the word is 'κατεφίλησεν' ('κατά + φιλώ'- the letter 'ε' if indicates the past tense in greek) and means 'kiss passionately'. i am just giving u the etymology, maybe search it like that in your dictionary:) Ciao! --Hectorian 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about something.Is it right to add the greek name in ancient Greeks' articles? I do not know if there is any kind of rule about that, but i guess it does not matter,does it? --Hectorian 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the advice! Yes, u are right. i just saw that u removed the number from one. i guess i forgot that they used only a title and i added the greek number in...10-20 articles! lol...i have a work to do, and i will remove it now...And when i will add the greek name in other, i will not add the number too. Ciao:) --Hectorian 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me in that and sorry for bothering u with something that was my mistake...I feel good that i did it only to the Ptolemaic dynasty, and not to all the Hellinistic Kings! --Hectorian 10:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't your keyboard support τόνους? (the marks above some greek letters?-i do not know the english world for them). --Hectorian 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:SFRY

Hi Adlux!

Why (rv)?

See you: [7]

) Ciao! --Asteraki 16

00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia

After extensive edit warring, article protection, and the statement of the extended version supporting side regarding both the name of the article, and the intro paragraph, a poll has been placed. The brief version supporting side is to keep the name of the article AND the intro paragraph free of the UN name (FYROM). Please participate in the vote and ask other editors you know to do so too.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about Salai(no)

Paul August suggested you might be able to answer the following question. In Leonardo_da_Vinci#Relationships I read "Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, nicknamed il Salaino ("The Little Unclean One" i.e., the devil), ...". Later, after a total of seven uses of "il Salaino", the text suddenly shifts to "Salai", without any explanation. Articles in other languages that mention the character at all appear to only use "Salai", without mention that this is a nickname. The online Italian dictionaries that I consulted don't have an entry for "salai(no)". So here is my question: Why the two forms, what is their relationship, and is it justified to have both in the article? (OK, that's three questions.) Hope you can illuminate me. Lambiam^Talk 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Aldux: Thanks for lending a hand on Leonardo da Vinci. By the way, on Tuesday, I'm going to Napoli, and then on to my little hill town in Calabria, Monterosso Calabro, for a couple of weeks ;-) Hope all is well with you. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:History of Chad

What do you think of adding Chadian-Sudanese conflict at the bottom? It probably needs something summarying up Chad in the 80s and 90s, but doing a summary of the current conflict on another page just seems needless. What do you think?

P.S. Are these history pages taken straight from LOC or just certain facts? KI 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much

for reverting my vandalised user page :) talk to +MATIA 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

King of Pontus

U are right...as always! well, this was something i didn't know about the kings of Pontus:). but by saying Hellenism made considerable inroads also in monarchies governed by kings of Persian or Thracian origin, as was the case with Bithynia, Cappadocia and Pontus, doesn't this seem a bit odd? i mean, ok about Cappadokia at that time, but Pontus was inhabited by Greeks, so it was more than expected that its character would be Greek. It's like saying 'Hellenism made considerable inroads in Hellenic people'... Regards --Hectorian 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aldux! According to my knowledge, Pontus existed as a collective name for the greek colonies in the area since the Archaic period. it was not just some scattered greek colonies there (i can name quite many cities), without of course meaning that it was so heavily greek-populated as Magna Graecia or Ionia. The term Cappadocia Pontica is the latin term for the region, not the greek one. The fact that we know little things about Hellenistic Pontus (or generally Ancient Pontus) may be cause of the lack of excavations, since the turkish government does not give permissions for that. Honestly, i know little things 'bout Mithridates, so i will just trust u on that:). perhaps i confused in my mind the region of Pontus (in the way the greeks considered and consider it till now) with the Kingdom of Pontus (which included much larger areas). Ciao! --Hectorian 07:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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)