User talk:NikoSilver

NikoSilver is currently working his ass off in real life and has decided that it is about time his long RealLifeBreak in favor of WP was interrupted. He will make frequent brief RealLifeBreaks, but you won't see him as much as you may be used to. (Yeah, he knows you're better off!)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User_talk:NikoSilver/Archive10. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
Jan 28 – Mar 28, 2006 Mar 28 – May  2, 2006 May  2 – May 29, 2006 May 29 – Jun  8, 2006 Jun  8 – Oct 12, 2006 Oct 12 – Nov 15, 2006 Nov 15 – Dec 31, 2006 Jan 1 – Jan 24, 2007 Jan 24 – ... 2007

Remarks

_*

1. I will post responses below your comment right here, so "watch" my page (or select to watch whatever you edit in your prefs). Same I will expect from you when I message you. Otherwise, continuity is completely lost.
2. You can spy if you want... Only morons don't use e-mail when they want to conspire...
3. My e-mail application actually has a bell thingy. I'll read them faster if you don't message me as well that you sent me one. Actually, it'd be more alarming to send me an e-mail, telling me you've left a message in my talk! :-)
4. This talk is being automatically archived using User:Werdnabot/Archiver. All comments that are older than 10 days are removed and placed in the respective archive. In the rare case I don't respond to a comment, please remind me so.
5. Sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) that produce your name and the datestamp. The automatic archive doesn't work if it doesn't see a timestamp!

Δε θα κάνεις archive το talk page σου ποτέ; Telex 1 3 : 0 5 , 2 M a y 2 0 0 6 ( U T C )

Μπα! :NikoSilver: ^{(T) @ (C)} 1 3 : 1 8 , 2 M a y 2 0 0 6 ( U T C )

---

Section

NIKO EPEIGON!!!!! Απίστευτες βλακείες γραφουν καποιοι χρήστες για τον Μακεδονικο Αγώνα και για τον Γερμανό Καραβαγέλλη. Προσπαθησα να διορθόσω λίγο την κατασταση αλλα δεν ξέρω εάν τα κατάφερα!! παρακαλώ βοήθεια!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanos_Karavangelis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Struggle_for_Macedonia

Signing to archive NikoSilver 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Greece WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - November 2006

The History of Greece WikiProject Newsletter Issue III - November 2006
Project news This is our third Newsletter! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered , its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions! The New articles section is created! lease, add there any new article you create. Check the section and comment on the way it is structured and works. Your contributions and ideas are necessary! The Peer review department has been created; it hopes to become an important tool for the amelioration of the articles within the scope of the project. Please, review and get reviewed! Check our Announcements and Open tasks. The Announcements sub-section is just created. Feel free to add there new events valuable for the function of our project. New shortcuts for the Outreach have been created. This will make easier your wikilinking! New initiatives are needed in order to keep our project working!	Current proposals and discussions Discussion continues about the possible imrovements of the follownig articles: Phanariotes and the Byzantine Empire. A discussion about the creation of a sub-page/task-force that will focus on POV disputes has begun (here). Greek Mythology is up for review in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Greek mythology and its FA status is endangered! A discussion about the organization of some face to face meet-ups has begun in the Outreach department. If you think that this would be feasible and productive, please feel free to participate in this discussion.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

Philhellenism Requests Your Assistnace

Γειά σου NikoSilver!!!

Είμαι ακόμα νέος σε Wikipedia, και θα επιθυμούσα να δημιουργήσω τη σελίδα χρηστών. Είστε ικανοί να με βοηθήσετε; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philhellenism (talk • contribs) 06:25, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue V (I) - January 2007

The WikiProject Greece Newsletter Issue V (I) - January 2007
Project news This is the first Newsletter of the new and enhanced Wikiproject Greece and the first of 2007! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered , its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions! The History of Greece Wikiproject and the Wikiproject Greece have been merged into the new Wikiproject Greece after the discussion between the members of both projects here. New parameters have been added in our banner, {{WPHOG}}, which allow the reviewer who evaluates the quality of an article and rates it to check the five criteria in the project's new quality scale, in order to determine whether an article deserves B-Class rating or not. Guidelines for the use of the banner are here. All the templates of the project and other templates for Greece-related articles are now gathered here. New sources concerning the "Greek onomatology" have been added in our main page. The Portal:Military of Greece has been created so if anyone wants to help go right ahead!	Current proposals and discussions Check the list with our articles needing attention, where Great Fire of Smyrna has been added. A suggestion for the creation of a fortnight or month Collaboration has been made here. Please, voice yourself: do you think this Collaboration is useful? Are you willing to participate? A proposal for the creation of a "Greece military history taskforce" has been made. Please participate in the discussion here and express yourself. The creation of a "Greek peoples task focre" and of a "Greek location task force" has been also proposed. Your contribution to the discussion here is again valuable. You can also check the discussion for the categorization of Roman-era Greeks here.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:26 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Talk moved to User talk:NikoSilver/Signature shop/Kukini.

Thanks

Thanks and sorry! :-)Sangak 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ela

Just to say I started a new site and forum for football ect, you are invited ofcourse and anyone else you want to bring!

http://barmedfootball.informe.com/index.php

Hope to see you on there!

# Reaper7  

Macedonism

Thanks for the formatting and references.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VI (II) - February 2007

The WikiProject Greece Newsletter Issue VI (II) - February 2007
Project news This is the second Newsletter of the new and enhanced Wikiproject Greece! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered , its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions! All the "History of Greece" templates have been moved to just plain "Greece", and the project's main page has been updated to use the new names and not the redirects. Our banner has been renamed to {{WPGreece}}). Additionally, "View/hide" hyperlinks for all the additional sections (Criteria for B-Class, peer-review, task forces) have been added to the banner, and a "small option" is also supported. The parameter for the Politics and politicians task force has been changed from task force1 to politics-task-force. For more details, check Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Project banner.	Current proposals and discussions A proposal for the creation of task forces for other areas, such as arts, sports, etc. has been made here. The creation of a task force to periodically check article within the scope of the project against "erosion" has been also proposed here. Please, participate in the above discussions and express yourself. Galleries of images at Greece, Athens, and Thessaloniki will probably get removed. A number were already removed from Greece. Interested editors are requested to make sure that any of these that aren't at Wikimedia Commons get moved there. A new category, Category:Greek Civil War, has been created. Please populate it with relevant articles on revolutionary organisations, events, leaders etc.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yannismarou (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Frappe

You are absolutely right about the Freddo, and Nestlé. My bad. Sorry. And thanks for correcting the picture as well, never thought it from that angle. However at least for frappé (and to some extend with freddo) there are many that have connected it with Nestle. Maybe you should comment on that. Also illy is using real coffee if I am not misteken, Freddo as we know it in Greece is with instant coffee.

Take care. Gpyrgiot

Responded in your talk! :-) NikoSilver 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

While i am not going to fight your re-opening of the RFCN on User:Mcedonia, in the future, I would appreciate you expressing your concerns to me before taking such action. While not necessary, it is generally courteous. Secondly, I stand by my originial decision. WP:RFCN is supposed to be based on username policy. So far, I have not seen any compelling disallow arguments based on polciy, only based on the possible conflict of interest with the edits. I do the same when closing afds with allwos or deletes not backed by policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem, please read the reasons more carefully. His userpage has been masquerading as a Wikipedia article on Macedonia obviously aided by his username.--Domitius 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You are mistaken in both accounts. RFCN cannot be but reverted immediately due to high traffic of the page, otherwise there is no archive. I'd have contacted you immediately to let you know, of course. Secondly, I have explained why policy applies, through both precedent and argumentation on "inflammatory". I would appreciate if you let it evolve, and let users express their concerns normally. "Precedent" and "inflammatory" are valid arguments, double standards and WP:ROUGEness aren't. NikoSilver 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, i am persoonalyl offended at your claims against me. I have no more of a stake in this than many others that I close. I, as well as 2 other users very active in WP:RFCN have agreed that this should be closed because it is very unlikley that a consensus to disallow will form. I have been involved in many of these and it only goes downhill from here (I.E., the same people argue the same points around in cirlces and get nowhere). As of your claim that there were more disallow than allows, I beg to differ. At the time of closure, there were 3 disallows that I counted and 5 allows that i counted. You have not proven the name is inflamatory to a majority of people and not even proven as to why it would be inflamatory. You seem to have a personal agenda against the person in question which also led me to believe a closure was appropriate. I am sorry that you feel I am rouge and have double standards, however if you look at my history of closing them I always use the same standards. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it personally Chris, I didn't mean anything against you (unless you find it rational to insist against the will of five users so far that is). "Unlikely" is an estimation, which is subjective. Will you please let it evolve in peace? We're confusing people there with our dispute. I'm sure you've understood what I'm saying, as I've understood your position. Both of us repeating will only make it worse for the rest. Let's agree that we disagree, and we see how it goes. OK? NikoSilver 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. However, there are not 5 people who are for disallowing. The most recent makes it 4. There will have to be a clear consensus based clearly on policy before anybody at WP:RFCN gets usernameblocked. I am just letting you know that. I have closed many many many of these. It is noithing against the name, I dont even have a personal preference either way, my only preference is based on my interpretation of the policy. You can look through my history of closing these and see it is nothing abnormal. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Chris, I've counted 60% so far in the last 3 weeks I'm voting there. Let's see what happens please. ("Five" counts FunkyFly who hasn't voted, but has expressed opinion. I'm sure he will if we give him the chance). NikoSilver 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, consensus is not based on a percentage either way. It is based roughly on that (at least for me). It is based on who is involved, the wuality of the arguments base don policy and such. For me to close this as disallow, there would probably have to be 15+ people who all came in with a strong oppose vite based soundly on policy. Not saying that all other admins are the same but many do the same thing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I can't convince you that both precedent and policy are applicable. Precedent because all other countries are blocked (which makes this [Jesus-THIS?] the only one) and policy because it is an inflammatory issue that has escalated to the highest possible authority for name disputes: the United Nations. Now RFCN is many steps below the UN, don't you agree? Look, I think this is a clear case which is also coupled by abuse. Please let others comment as well, and we see. Caution, though: Your note about WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY works both ways... :-) NikoSilver 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, precedent often applies. But, the actions of a single administrator, do you think that counts? If you showed a precedential RFCN, that would go alot further. Also note, I am not the only person who says that precedence does not apply. Thanks for being so civil and appropriate with this. I undrestand it is frustrating (often for all of this). I want to assure you I have nothing against you, or anybody elses opinion for that matter. I just closed based on past experiences on where the conversation was going. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Chris, I haven't seen you around in the much troubled Macedonia-related articles. BTW, do you like my starred article? My other one? Your feedback will be valuable there too. Sorry if I sounded harsh, it's just that "Macedonia" is obviously a contentious issue where I come from. For ages that is... NikoSilver 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Username problem

Hey, just wanted to say I'm in bed at the minute (got work tomorrow!) so thats why I'm not replying to your comments on my talk page, I will reply tomorrow. By all means speak to chris or high about this. I hope theres no hard feelings about this - tomorrows another day in the office RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add, if you've got any immediate concerns, by all means take it to WP:AN or WP:AN/I RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Please do not threaten other members to attempt to get them to perform certain actions. "Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to Macedon7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. {{uhappen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it)" is innapropriate. If you continue these actions, I will block you for threatening other editors. THank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is a normal announcement of my Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution intention a threat? I am going to pursue this issue. That's all I'm saying. Are you threatening me? NikoSilver 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that if you had said you were going to puruse it, that would have been ok. The statement, "Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to happen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it)" is you threatning action if an editor does not comply with you. That is innapropriate and yes, I am telling you that if you threaten another editor that you will perform a certain action unless they comply, I will block you. I have no problem with you pursuing whatever you want to, just dont use it to threaten other editors. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Niko, se parakalo - telinone, de tha yini afto pu thes.--Domitius 01:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am officially dropping the topic. You are welcome to pursue whatever avenue of dispute resolution you so desire. You know that your claim was a threat. If you had state, "I disagree with your decision and intend to puruse arbitration", that would have been an appropriate way to state it that was not a threat. "Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to happen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it)" where you claim if ryan does not comply with you you will pursue arbitration, is a threat. You know damn well that it was. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No no no, it depends where you want to tie "pursue" with. I meant it for the issue, not for ...Ryan of course! I did not intend to be interpreted this way, and I am sorry you "damn well" think so. I am in no position to threaten anyone... I'm a mere user. Are you in such a position? NikoSilver 01:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, skase.--Domitius 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's going on here? Chris, I'm sure when Nikos said "if you don't..." etc., he didn't mean to use that as the cliché of threatening, but as a factual statement ("if the discussion is closed now, we won't be able to see if a consensus develops"). But sure, in the context of "I will pursue..." it could easily be misread because it has the grammatical form of that threatening stereotype. - On the other hand, Niko, I must join Domitius here, better to let it go. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for your edification and amusement, here's list of user names we currently have. In my eyes, they are all equally poor taste, but there's no policy against them. For me, the fact that "Macedonia" is the name of the country whereas the others use the name of the group isn't much of a difference. The issue is: any user who feels that the role and identity they want to project on Wikipedia is so closely bound to their role and identity as a member of a certain ethnic group or nation that they must trumpet that connection out through the choice of their name, has a problem with what Wikipedia is all about. It's like waving a big flag with "I'm a single-purpose POV-pushing account" written on it. And that's exactly what most of these are. No difference whether they call themselves "X-ia" or "X-ian" or "X-ese patriot" or "X4ever" or "X 4life" or "X-ian pride" or "proud X-ian" or "X warrior" or whatever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

With significant edit history

1. Macedon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Romanian)
2. Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (RoM)
3. Macedonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (RoM)
4. Macedonian Empire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (RoM)
5. Macedonian876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (?)
6. Makedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (RoM)
7. Makedon45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier name of User:Macedonia)
8. Makedonas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Gr)
9. Makedonec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (RoM)
10. Makedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (RoM)
11. Makedonia1903 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (RoM)
12. Makedonija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (BUL)
13. Makedonski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (?)

Marginal

1. Macedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 edit)
2. Macedon5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (4 edits)
3. Macedon7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (3 edits)
4. Macedone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (4 edits)
5. Macedoniagreece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (4 edits)
6. Macedonian Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2 edits)
7. MacedonianSoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 edit)
8. Macedonians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (3 edits)
9. Makedon- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (4 edits)
10. Makedonac4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (3 edits)
11. MakedoneF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 edit)
12. Makedonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2 edits)
13. Makedonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 edit)
14. Makedonno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 edit)
15. Makedonom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (3 edits)
16. Makedonomaxis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (6 edits)
17. Makedonomaxos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (3 edits)

No contributions

1. Macedon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
2. Macedonia06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
3. Macedonian makedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
4. Macedonian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
5. Macedonianhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
6. Macedonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
7. MakedoN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
8. MakedonS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
9. Makedonce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-
10. Makedonsko devojce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-

I agree FP, you know I do. Thanks for the heads up. When people reach the point of deliberately misinterpreting your words in order to cut you off, then you definitely have to pass. "It was a threat!" Yeah right, I "threatened" that we'd have to start all over... NikoSilver 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Niko, would you like to start the RFCN again, as I said yesterday, todays a new day and you do great work on RFCN and I hope you continue to do so, you have my conent if you wish to bring it up again, regards RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Ryan. I can't be bothered right now to go through all of it from scratch. That's why I requested you revert yourself yesterday. We can't RFCN people every day, and your consent would probably place me in the awkward position of violating WP:POINT. An admin candidate should know that; good luck with your RfA. NikoSilver 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it would be WP:POINT as I'd be supporting you, I am more than happy to open it up myself if you so wish, anyway, we could wait a few days if you want and then reopen it? When everyones tensions all round have calmed down and we can start afresh with it. Each person put there opinion first and then maybe just let consensus run? I think that would be the best way. Would you like me to talk to High and Chris about it? I think it would bebest if we left it to a neutral party to close it, cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be much better to let everybody cool off from the (first!?) edit war in WP:RFCN over closing a case. How about we make a subpage and work on the arguments until then? e.g. here: User:NikoSilver/Macedonia. Then we can copy it in RFCN again. Also, we could liven up the country-username discussion in WT:U. I had started it, but I was given the answer than "we won't change the policy for 1 user and I should go to RFCN". So I did, and here's where we are now. How do you think that makes me feel? NikoSilver 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good idea, could you mention it on the main WP:RFCN page? By all means place diffs to show that I agree with reopening the case. Again, I've got work tomorrow so won't be able to comment on anything tonight as I'm about to go to bed, but your idea is great, on a subpage, it can run for as long as we need RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to that, by all means add to the thread on WP:U talk page, it should be discussed, again, I will look into it tomorrow and comment RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually here it's later... UTC+3. There's no rush, we'll work on it in the next days; I'll let you know. Goodnight. NikoSilver 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss before revert

See Talk:Cypriot Civil War. I'm not convinced of the validity of the article, but nationalist tag team reverting is so passé. - Francis Tyers · 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the talk man. E-mail chats with blocked users are more passé. Plus you're rv-ing without knowing what you're actually doing, aren't you? See talk in a jiffy... NikoSilver 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moonbot

Yes, I agree with you that this username was unacceptable, hence why I voted Disallow. I just didn't see anything in WP:U or other policy (other than WP:SNOW, which should be used sparingly) allowing the discussion to be closed early, which was why I disagreed slightly with your comment. But I agree with you in principle. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. Something like this:

• Usernames which falsely imply a Wikipedia function, such as adminship, bureaucratship, or a bot, are eligible for Speedy Disallow. Users with such usernames may be blocked immediately by an admin without going through RfCN; any RfCN opened on such a username will be eligible for early closure.

Or maybe an equivalent of db-tagging for such usernames - this would certainly reduce the backlog at RfCN. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - I hadn't thought of making it a formal policy proposal. It's certainly a possibility, but I'm not sure it would get enough support to be added to the policy; major WP policy changes are notoriously hard to achieve, and most fail. But if you think it's worth it, then I'll float the idea at WT:U tomorrow. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although I also thought the same should apply to accounts that impersonate admins or other official WP functions, as well as fake bots. Better to be consistent. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally uncomfortable with WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, since they give admins a certain degree of discretionary power. I feel that process is important in itself, and as such it's always better to have a clear policy for specific common situations. And this situation is sufficiently common that there's no reason not to have a rule for it. However, I would tend to agree that it's not worth the palaver of trying to establish consensus for a change in policy, so unless you think it's a good idea, I probably won't make it a formal proposal. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On a random note about the speedy disallows of names with bot in them. Some people bring questionable ones to WP:RFCN. The other day, we had one "fattabbot". It ended in but but abbot is a name. There was no consensus to disallow and the name was not blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to message on my talkpage) OK I take your point, it's probably not worth trying to quantify all the situations in which SNOW might be applied to an RfCN. As Chris points out above, the reason we have RfCN, rather than just blocking every dodgy username at first sight, is because mistakes can be made, and not all usernames that appear questionable are actually in direct violation of WP:U. How about a simpler provision, probably under WP:RFCN rather than WP:U:

• If at least 5 users have commented on an RfCN and there is a unanimous consensus to Disallow, then the closing admin may exercise his or her judgement in closing the RfCN early. This should be applied in cases where there is little or no doubt as to the impropriety of the name.

I'm not saying that the above should necessarily be added to the policy, but I think it's a good guideline for RfCN users and admins to follow. I might write a WP essay on it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

User talk:NikoSilver/Macedonia

The above page is very interesting, had a quick look at the Rfc for Macedonia as well. Can I make a suggestion to you? Why don't you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Username policy? You might like to show the precedents as well to back up your idea. It would be a very good idea to discuss this issue, because at present, there is no clear definition for countries with usernames in at WP:U Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the above page being used for a rfc or some other purpose? or just a gethering of information? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is this Rfc, I think the page relates to that Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are these suitable precedents [1][2]?--Domitius 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Romania is as it was blocked for a username violation, User:Romanian isn't as it was blocked for trolling and probable sockpuppetry Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You gotta understand. If i do something as an admin, with no community consensus, that does not really mean alot when it comes to precedent. I could get pissed off and block everybody with Chris in there name. (I wont do that). Find a previous rfcn about a country where the community discussed it, that would be precedent. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you there chris, when I said precedent above, I got words muddled and was meant to say examples (not precedents) of usernames with countries in that have been blocked. I personally can't see any problem with these names as the current policy stands, and I don't feel theres need to change it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re precedent of discussion, we have this discussion (read below, not just the diff) in WT:U among valued members of the community that lead to the cull of 94 country-names. NikoSilver 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Romania was already in the list. I didn't notice it as I was looking near the end of the list because I thought it was organized alphabetically - turns out it isn't.--Domitius 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Chris and Ryan. For the moment, see that you are quoted in his userpage among those who "have also acted on behalf of Wikipedia to make your voices heard against the Greek fabricators who continue to spread anti-Macedonian and facist propaganda on this encyclopedia". This is beyond words. I rest my case. NikoSilver 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've brought that new version of his userpage up at WP:ANI, and I'm inclined to delete it again. Let him keep the name if he must, but let's stop him soapboxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FP you are constantly deleting all my evidence! How am I supposed to show people that I'm no elephant? NikoSilver 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, for everybody, please check the policy that it clearly states "potentially inflammatory or offensive". I remember someone (Mel Etitis, I think) in that RFCN said that frequently "it is the offendee who is at fault". Well, can an Eskimo say that we "are wrongly offended" when while receiving our hospitality he slept with our wife? (typical custom of the Eskimos) Are 1 million protesting "offendees" in Thessaloniki "wrongly offended"? My point is that ethics uses subjective criteria. What is offensive for one, may not be for another. It is really silly to suggest that people are "wrongly offended", because there is no objective definition for wrong and right. NikoSilver 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Epirus

Niko, any chance you can share some thoughts on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aldux#Northern_Epirus

Regards,

Φilhellenism 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordu, Ayran, etc.

Hey buddy, you're new to me. How are you doing? So you just happen to see my contributions on 5-6 articles and decided that you found faults with every single one - no discusion of course - and just reverted cause you felt like it huh? OK. cool. I know who I am dealing at least. --Oguz1 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

...an "when-sees-extreme-POV-reverter-to-the-consented-version" perhaps? The question is who the rest of us are dealing with... NikoSilver 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. I simply do not understand what you are saying above, maybe you should translate it to plain old englsih. What you are you saying? Regarding your reverts, show me on any discusion where the "concensus" was reached. --Oguz1 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensuses are reached globally for certain things. There's a throughout-wiki policy that all relevant names are listed. Also, consensuses are reached by users in the edit summaries and in the edits themselves. When you're outnumbered, it is you that has the burden of proof to convince your edits are ok. Not vice versa. Regarding your previous edit here, it was an NPA by all definitions. NikoSilver 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to me to disprove claims that are unsourced and inserted originally by Anonymous people (as in Ordu, and Şebinkarahisar). If someone wants to defend that claim, they need to bring me NPOV and unbiased sources..not the other way around, that's ridiculous. Can you imagine peple having to disprove every little claim made on a page? this thing would explode in 3 seconds. Besides, it's WP Rules and you know that. There's no such thing as concencuson facts. 2+2 always equals 4, not 5. Why would you want to revert to a version made by anonymous version (Şebinkarahisar) anyway? Do you mind answering that? See here(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Eebinkarahisar&diff=70728065&oldid=65942541) Same goes for Ordu. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ordu&diff=77173579&oldid=76035251) --Oguz1 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea about the diffs you provide. The first I never edited, and from the second's article I observed that you removed sourced information to substitute with poorly formatted POV. Now please go and discuss these where applicable (i.e. the article talkpages), so that all users can respond. Not here. NikoSilver 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed it on the Article page....A LOT. And now I am discussing it here because now you made a revert youself and got yourself into the POV discussion. BUT, you are not discussing anything, ARE YOU?. If you are, I would like to hear your view on why the sources used are NPOV. And neither DIFF link I provided even has my name on it. What are you talking about my POV edit? I never ADDED anything POV. You are the one making POV reverts that are made by ANOYMOUS and UNSOURCED. --Oguz1 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The diff of my revert speaks for itself as to what is sourced and what is poorly formatted and unsourced. Now DON'T SHOUT and leave me alone please. Enough! NikoSilver 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested on learning how to be rude on WP, they can view this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NikoSilver&diff=113931434&oldid=113930943. --Oguz1 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This one is better: [3]. NikoSilver 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Cheers for the congrats! No doub you will have opposed me! ;-) Anyway, hows the Macedonia thing getting along? Can I be of assisstance? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I don't oppose people based on single incidents. I only vote for (or against) people I know better than that. For Macedonia, check my additions to our last talk 2-3 sections above, and the subpage for new data added lately. I am still trying to understand where we could be wrong about that reasoning... NikoSilver 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Transliterations

I saw your transliteration changes. You've mainly replaced i's with e's. While your version is correct (also) there's been quite a lot of argumentation o the issue of Greek transliteration, and currently WP uses the i's. There are thousands of articles with Greek in them, so I would suggest you re-edit and post the previous version for consistency. Other than that, no-biggie from my side, and I really don't care so much.

Για να βρούμε την χρυσή τομή θα βάλω αμφότερες μεταγραφές. H greeklish μεταγραφή πάντως είναι απλώς λάθος.Ουκ εν τωι πολλωι το ευ. Η αγγλική Wikipedia νομίζω οτι είναι για τον λοιπό πλανήτη ως επί το πλείστον. Η αγγλική Wikipedia σ'ολα τ'αρθρα -πλην μάλλον αυτών που γράφουμε εμείς οι νεοέλληνες- χρησιμοποιεί άλλη μεταγραφή. Ο λοιπόν πλανήτης έχει λοιπόν ήδη μια μεταγραφή από ελληνικά στα αγγλικα η λατινικά.Και μάλιστα την σωστή. Ένα απ'τα άπειρα επιχειρήματα κατα των greeklish εν τοιαύτη περιπτώσει είναι ότι στο αγγλικό αλφάβητο ηχητικά i = (κυρίως) άι.

Παρεπιπτόντως, πιθανώς να ήθελες να διαβάσεις την πολιτική για τα ονόματα χρηστών. Φαίνεσαι αξιόλογος χρήστης, και επειδή το όνομα που διάλεξες είναι στο όριο της αποδοχής, πιθανόν η εικόνα του να κάνει άλλους χρήστες να σε αδικήσουν πριν δουν τις συνεισφορές σου.

Περί του ονόματος ουδείς λόγος.Σ'όποιον αρέσουμε.Το επίθεμα 666 ετέθη κυρίως επειδή σκέτο θάνατος κατειλημμένο.Αλλά και λίγο τσιτωμα στις θεούσες δεν βλαπτει :-)

Για οτιδήποτε χρειαστείς, η σελίδα συζήτησής μου στη διάθεσή σου.

Νάσαι καλά φίλε.Ευχαριστώ για την υποδοχή.Θα επικοινωνώ όποτε μπορώ. :) Τσάγια