Yannismarou

Hey old friend, just wanted to let you know that I've returned from the wiki-grave after a few years. Long story as to why I was gone so long--long hours at work, frequent travel, and not having my books with me were the major culprits. It's good to see that you're still around! I see you've produced an immense amount of work over the past several years. In many ways, it's a reversal of the way things were in 2006--compared to you, I'm a newbie now! Hope to see you around! --Robth^Talk 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hellow Yanni! I hope you are well! I am thinking about reviving the WPGR newsletter so as to get more of its nominal members to engage with WPGR, and have prepared one to be released within the next few days here. What do you think? Constantine ✍ 09:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you have the time and the appetite to do it, I think it is a great idea. It may also attract some attention for the topics it includes. If anything else comes to my mind I'll let you know, but I do not follow Wikipedia so closely lately, and I'm not as well informed as you are about what is going on here. Robth is back, but, although this is indeed great news, I don't think we could include it in the newsletter!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Demosthenes (fictional character) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has no clear subject, fictional characters discussed are non-notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anthem of joy (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Demosthenes (fictional character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demosthenes (fictional character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anthem 08:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Demosthenes (fictional character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demosthenes (fictional character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anthem 10:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Demosthenes (fictional character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demosthenes (fictional character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anthem 10:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

γΙαννη καλησπέρα, τι γίνετε με το άρθρο της Λευκωσίας εδώ ? η τουρκικη πλευρα δεν ειναι αναγνωρισμενη θεωρηται παράνομη αρα κακός μπαίνουν και βλεπω ιδιαίτερο ζηλο απο καποιους διαχειριστες να τα αφησουν και να κλειδωσουν το άρθρο! αυτος User:Seb az86556 τι ρόλο βαράη ?αυτα που λεει ειναι προσβλητικά στο τελος θα αρχισουμε τις μηνυσεις οπως το πανε μερικοι . tony esopi^λέγε

Καλησπέρα! Μου αρέσει πολύ το άρθρο αυτό και συγχαρητήρια για την δουλειά σου σε αυτό! Αν και η άδεια το επιτρέπει χωρίς να σε ρωτήσω, ωστόσο θεωρώ πιο σωστό καθώς μιλάς και εσύ την γλώσσα, να σε ρωτήσω αν σε πειράζει να το μεταφράσω για την ελληνική Βίκι. Αν ακόμα και στο μακρυνό μέλλον έχεις σκοπό να το κάνεις ο ίδιος θα το αφήσω. (αν θες απάντησέ μου εδώ, γιατί η IP μου σήμερα είναι και αύριο δεν είναι). --94.65.106.187 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Καλησπέρα και από εμένα. Όχι, δε με πειράζει. Μετάφρασέ το ελεύθερα. Απλώς, αν ποτέ το υποβάλεις για FA στην ελληνική βικιπαιδεία, ανάφερε την αρχική πηγή και το συγγραφέα της!Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ευχαριστώ, είτε το υποβάλλω είτε όχι, η αναφορά στην αρχική πηγή και τον κύριο συντάκτη θα γίνει ούτως η άλλως, είτε με εισαγωγή του ιστορικού, είτε με άλλο εμφανή τρόπο σύμφωνα με τα απαιτούμενα της άδειας. Όταν το αναρτήσω θα σε ειδοποιήσω. --79.130.64.190 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Το άρθρο τελείωσε με λίγη καθυστέρηση el:Σταμάτα Ρεβίθη. Κάθε έλεγχος από μέρους σου της μετάφρασης είναι παραπάνω από ευπρόσδεκτος! Ευχαριστώ και πάλι! (Ο ίδιος με τους αποπάνω)--Geilamir (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Πολύ καλή δουλειά. Έκανα λίγο copy-editing.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ευχαριστώ για τα καλά λόγια και ακόμα περισσότερο για τον κόπο να το διορθώσεις. Όταν το προτείνω για αξιόλογο θα σε ξαναειδοποιήσω. --Geilamir (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have seen in the page history, that you have written, wiht that I can't understand. I have a problem with this: "Kagan criticizes the Periclean strategy on four counts: first that by rejecting minor concessions it brought about war; second, that it was unforeseen by the enemy and hence lacked credibility; third, that it was too feeble to exploit any opportunities; and fourth, that it depended on Pericles for its execution and thus was bound to be abandoned after his death.[121] " It is trivial: If a strategy by the enemy unforeseen is, then it is good. If a strategy by the enemy foreseen is, it is bad. I have no possibility to reed the original text. Woult you that do? What is the ground for "lacked credibility"?--Klug Csaba Ferenc (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have indeed to check my source, which will probably happen in ... no less than one month! Thanks for bringing to my attention this issue.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I understand that purely because Macedonian's see their nation and refer to their nation as 'Macedonia' wiki has to follow suit on how it names the article. I am fine with that. My question is this. Alexander the Great, his father Philip II and many of their forefathers referred to themselves as Greek, in letters/speeches and commonly and openly claimed Greek descent from the Argead dynastic house of Argos. Is it then fair to mention that they were 'Greek' kings on the introduction pages of their respective articles. This 'Greek' label was unceremoniously removed years ago by the famous army of editors that redefined these pages for ever. As far as logic goes, would it be acceptable to call these kings Greek as they referred to themselves without causing a new WW3 on wiki? Thanks for you time. Reaper7 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you feel the same need to mention in Pericles' or Themistocles' or Pausanias' articles that they were Greeks?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because they didn't constantly refer themselves as Greeks the way the Royal Macedonian house did. You see Themistocles and Perikles were both proud Athenians. The Macedonian Royal house however, was often knocked by Athens and other Greek city states as not being Greek enough. That is why the Macedonian Royal house constantly referred to itself as Greek. Also, the editors who felt the need to remove the 'Greek' from these ancient Macedonian pages did it for reasons connected to modern politics in FYR Macedonia, not because they were historians, their reason and motives were as clear as yours. With the help of some idiot Greek editors and some neutrals, they completed their mission. You ever wonder why for example, this opening to Archimedes page was not changed? : Archimedes of Syracuse (Greek: Ἀρχιμήδης; c. 287 BC – c. 212 BC) was a Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, inventor, and astronomer As they say, to work out the answer as to why this was never changed is hardly rocket science. But alas, I shall not waste your time, I see where you stand on the issue. Thanks for your time and attempt to educate me on Perikles and Themistokles' respective identities anyway. Take care. Reaper7 (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your reaction to the other people's opinions (I want to remind you that it was you who came to my talk page with a question! I did not invite you!), and your interest not to waste my time is duly appreciated, but I now feel I have to say some more things: You ask me if by re-adding the designation "Greek" you'll cause the 3rd World War; my answer is yes, you will, because you cannot support your actions. I asked you how come and you do not feel the need to do the same thing in Pericles' or Themistocles' article. Your looong (but so empty) answer to this question does not include the only reasonable argument you could think about: Because their Greek identity was never disputed (contrary to Alexander's, Philip's or even Pyrrhus'), but, if Albania or FYROM was next to Sparta, I am sure that now everybody would dispute Spartans' "Greekness". Instead of saying that, you argue what? Nothing! All your other argumentents are pure crap, and they convince n-o-b-o-d-y. If you don't understand that, it's a pitty.
Why don't I support (although I don't strongly oppose either) the readdition of the determination "Greek"? Read my arguments in Alexanders' previous GAR. Let me also tell you something else: Today, after Athenean's hard, impressive and dedicated work, Alexander's article became a GA. I want to quote some excerpts from the lede (and only the lede, namely a very tiny part of the whole text) of this marvellous article (italics are mine): "Alexander III of Macedon [...] was a king of Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece"; "He was awarded the generalship of Greece and used this authority to launch his father's military expansion plans." "Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and the resulting spread of Greek culture in the east resulted in a new Hellenistic civilization." Do you grasp my point? If not, let me make it clear to you, because my point consists of two parts: (1) After everything you read, do you have any doubt about Alexander's Greekness? What else do you need? What's the necessity of the "Greek" word? (2) If you want to convince the people about the "Greekness" of Alexander, Philip, Pyrrhus etc, the best way to do that is to improve their articles, and reveal their personalities. Therefore, instead of waging wiki world wars, It is better to get your ass down, and write a nice article during your wikitime. Do it just for a change: you'll do yourself a favor; you'll do Philip etc. a favor; you'll do univeral knowledge a favor. You can take as an example some of the best Greek editors of Wikipedia, such as Constantine, Alexikoua, Athenean and other. And I'll be also here to assist you in your first acquaintance with real editing.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry I am not going to waste my time reading your convoluted shite where you prove yet again how little you know about the ancient the world with your seedy meaningless comparisons. You are an embarrassment and easily one of the reasons there have been so many wars on here. I should have listened to the members who messaged me to avoid your page like a diseased pig as your lack of intelligence mixed with confidence is legendary on here, but I believe even the most stupid yet confident members deserve a second chance and you were given yours. Anyway, go in peace and keep doing what you are doing. An acute lack and vacuum of historical knowledge matched with arrogance is the foundation of the new Macedonian pages anyway, nightmare for the reader, but great for limited mind and you sir are built for them. Keep up the work and don't jump off a cliff, we need members like you to add balance and help political correctness. Feel free to have the last words, but like your previous peace of intellectual sick, don't expect the doors to smashed down as people scramble to read your freshly laid feces, they never have before and they will never do in the future. Remember, 'Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.' I admit I am completely to blame for the ugly nature you display, just as if I had gone into house full of spastics and forced them to solve the Rubik's Cube under timed conditions, it was unfair of me to burden you with any type of logic and your reaction, although full of lies, severe lack of understanding of the ancient Argead House and misinformation, is totally expected and justified. I understand you have just enough brains to attempt to complete a sentence, but not enough alas to fill it with anything but garbage and I am sure you have experienced many conflicts in life, even away from the computer. Enjoy your time left on this planet anyway and thank your parents from me for not considering Euthanasia after they realised your IQ was in the single digits, but your confidence was off the charts. You deserved life no matter what anyone says to you either online or to your face. I am sure none of what I said will ever be remembered by you, so don't worry! Reaper7 (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to have the last word, but I really felt the need to praise your pacifism and thank you for giving me a second chance. I am sorry I was proved not worthy of it! I am sorry! Please, forgive me! Please!!--Yannismarou (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see that the more I get sarcastic the more I attract your attention. What is going on here? Is there a big desperate love hidden behind this apparent hate? Marry Christmas by the way!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You were using sarcasm!! LOL. Well done for trying and it is completely not your fault you have not mastered this technique properly. I already said it was not your fault in the post before. I don't beat my dog if it shits on the carpet and I certainly won't ever blame a dumb wet shit with pathetic intellectual aspirations, for committing verbal diarrhea on his own talk page. Yes, it's unfortunate someone taught you how to spell the names of famous Greeks like Themistocles and how you use them in conjunction with your useless and damaged mind farts on an encyclopedia. But so what? You deserve life just as every pseudo historian and nutcase propagandist does. Also thanks for the Merry Xmas wishes, but I am not Christian and never bought into Coca Cola's idea of what Xmas should be! Don't think Jesus was a capitalist either! Sleep well sweet prince, this world is too harsh for one a precious as you! Reaper7 (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm so happy your bans are over and you are back in Wikipedia! It's going to be so fun (until you are banned again of course)! By the way, I have a last question: Do you realize that everything you write makes no sense? You don't, do you?!--Yannismarou (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Of course you are happy I am back from the ban years ago! You and others were my guardian angel in the disgraceful incidents that lead to the ban, remember? Unfortunately, Chris0 managed to get my ban after some early failed attempts, he just persevered and got the ban of many a neutral editor and also some more aggressively proud editors. Was a big defeat for the neutralisty of these Macedonian sections - that to this day - are not allowed to even attempt neutrality: [hardcore] but I forgot to thank you at the time for dismissing his early attempts vocally. Chris0 attempts to warn and then successfully ban Reaper7 i know we are sworn enemies since your charming welcome to be on your talk page, but for what it is worth, thanks for limiting his destructive abuse of wikipedia policy at the time. Reaper7 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yannismarou. I think Modern understanding of Greek mythology needs some attention. It seems you wrote most of this? Yes? Paul August ☎ 12:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Paul! How are you? Sorry for the delayed response. Yeap, it was mostly written by me; and it is indeed like an abandoned child. However, some of my other children have now attracted my attention. I hope I shall manage to dedicate some time to it as well soon. Best!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good Article Award For developing Alexander the Great, an article under WikiProject India, into a Good Article. AshLin (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! Although almost most of the credit goes to Athenean.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.Reply

Καλησπέρα, σβήσετο, του έκανα μετακίνηση στον σωστό τιτλο , το είχε κάνει λάθος ο pοubie που ούτε ελληνικκά ήξερε καλά ούτε αγγλικά ::)) --tony esopi^λέγε 20:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yannismarou,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

	Quality Management Inspection Medal
	I, [Inspector] No. 108, am honored to award you this medal for your constructive and industrious contributions to the quality management inspection process. I appreciate your assistance in improving the "Stable Version" of the Byzantine Empire entry. Always know that you have this humble inspector's gratitude and respect. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm honored, Mr. Inspector, but I am not sure If I full deserve the honor, since we have a looot of work to save the article. Best!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Check mail please. Nataly8 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Geia sou Yanni,

I have a question about sourcing. In the last sentence of the "Apex" section, I added a citation from Averil Cameron's "The Byzantine". However, when I moved the citation template to the Sources, I saw that the book is already there, in a Greek translation by Giorgos Tzimas. This is a problem because not only is the same book cited twice, but the page numbers may be different. However, when I click on the link for the Greek translation, Google Books takes me to the English version, so I can't check the page numbers of the Greek version. Not sure what do about this. Athenean (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Yannismarou - I got to your page through WP:BIOG. There's an MOS-related discussion going on here, and your opinion would be valuable. Thanks! Sleddog116 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Καλησπέρα! Το άρθρο σου που μετέφρασα έχει προταθεί για αξιόλογο στην ελληνική βικιπαίδεια el:Βικιπαίδεια:Υποψήφια αξιόλογα λήμματα#Σταμάτα Ρεβίθη. --Geilamir (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a note to let the main editors of Stamata Revithi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 5, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 5, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Stamata Revithi was a Greek woman who ran the 40-kilometre marathon during the 1896 Summer Olympics. The Games excluded women from competition, but Revithi insisted that she be allowed to run. Revithi ran one day after the men had completed the official race, and although she finished the marathon in approximately 5 hours and 30 minutes and found witnesses to sign their names and verify the running time, she was not allowed to enter the Panathinaiko Stadium at the end of the race. She intended to present her documentation to the Hellenic Olympic Committee in the hopes that they would recognize her achievement, but it is not known whether or not she did so. No known record survives of Revithi's life after her run. According to contemporary sources, a second woman, Melpomene, also ran the 1896 marathon race. There is debate among Olympic historians as to whether or not Revithi and Melpomene are the same person. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

	great Greek people
	Thank you for sharing your knowledge about a broad spectrum of topics related to Greece, such as Pericles and Stamata Revithi, but also El Greco and Law, and for teaching us how to do that, "by writing FAs you spread your knowledge, and you thus make the world a better place!" Repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 July 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

wishing to have met you sooner, all the best for what you do next, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were the 204th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:Bern Lady Justice.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated Battle of Greece for Today's Featured Article consideration, please see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Battle_of_Greece.

Thank you for your incredible quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia !

Most appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Greece know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 6, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 6, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

 

The Battle of Greece began on 6 April 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded Greece during World War II. It followed an unsuccessful Italian invasion in October 1940 and an Italian counterattack in March 1941. When the German invasion began (German artillery pictured), the bulk of the Greek army was on the Albanian border, defending against the Italians. German troops created a second front by coming through Bulgaria, where the Greek defensive line did not receive adequate reinforcements. The Greek army was vastly outnumbered by the two invading forces and was soon forced to surrender. The German army reached Athens on 27 April and Greece's southern shore on 30 April, capturing 7,000 soldiers from British Empire forces who had been sent in anticipation of Germany's invasion. The conquest of Greece was completed with the capture of Crete a month later. Looking back near the end of the war, as Germany's defeat loomed ever closer, Hitler blamed Mussolini's Greek fiasco for his own subsequent catastrophe. As an explanation of Germany's calamitous defeat in the Soviet Union, this had little to commend it. It nevertheless had serious consequences for the Axis war effort in north Africa. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

great Greek people
Thank you for sharing your knowledge about a broad spectrum of topics related to Greece, such as Pericles and Stamata Revithi, but also El Greco and Law, and for teaching us how to do that, "by writing FAs you spread your knowledge, and you thus make the world a better place!" Repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 July 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were the 204th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 204 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Presuming that you are still around to read this, I would like to know if you would permit me to copy your essay Ten Rules to make an article FA so that I can place it (with proper credit given) with a collection of similarly-styled essays located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy. Your advice could be useful to a great many editors, and the more it is seen the greater impact it could have. I shall await your reply, however long or short it may be. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem!Yannismarou (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, standard is not to have any text in the opinion polling tables. It only rarely is done so, and usually only for very relevant events (i.e. another election of a different kind being held). So I don't know from where are you getting that info that it is a common practice, since it isn't.

A few examples:

• Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016
• Polish parliamentary election, 2015
• Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017#Opinion_polling
• Portuguese legislative election, 2015#Opinion polls
• Japanese general election, 2014#Polling
• Opinion polling for the Turkish general election, November 2015
• Opinion polling for the Danish general election, 2015
• Opinion polling for the German federal election, 2013
• Next German federal election#Poll results
• Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015
• Opinion polling for the Indian general election, 2014

The text is unneeded and entirely irrelevant; opinion polling already started to pop up well before parliament dissolution. What you do is arbitrary; why pointing out parliament dissolution and not other events? In such a case, tables tend to be very cluttered and almost unreadable. Impru20 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I actually put you more examples of pages that did not have text on their opinion polling pages than you did on those that did (furthermore, your example of Opinion polling for the Turkish general election, June 2015 does have text, but does not note the dissolution of Parliament). So, your statement that it is a precedent is simply wrong. Yes, there are articles having text, but there are many others not having it. Just because a few articles show it doesn't mean there is a "precedent"; a "precedent" arises when it is a common practice. Otherwise, I am just as right as you (even more) to revert your edits, because there are lots more of precedents pointing to opinion polling tables with no text.

I could very well say the same of you, of reverting my edits without explaining and keeping reverting them while this discussion is still ongoing. Since the controversial edit is yours (as no one else had tried to push forward your proposal before and people thought it being fine as it was) you should wait until this discussion is over, at least.

The dissolution of Parliament being "the" event in a parliamentary democracy" is a personal opinion of yours, not an universal truth. Most of the time, electoral campaigns do not officially start when Parliament is dissolved, but later. So that would be misleading. Your opinion that "the polls are not for a "hypothetical" election but for the "upcoming" elections" is kinda surprising; do you suggest that there is a difference between polls carried out before the Parliament dissolution and those carried out later? Furthermore, you don't seem to take into account other factors, such as the election actually being announced on 20 August (so Parliament dissolution is pretty much irrelevant, since the election was already widely expected to happen since one week before).

Also, voters could be much more heavily influenced by other events (i.e. in the case of Greece, the signing of the third bailout package) rather than the mere dissolution of Parliament (specially when a snap election had been announced by 20 August), which I can't really see how most people would mind to it.

As for the Marc poll, I used the publication date shown here since we do not know the fieldwork date (yet) -> http://www.electograph.com/2015/09/greece-september-2015-marc-poll.html

As for the Bridging Europe poll, it is irrelevant whether the poll is published in a Greek media outlet or not. It is a poll, and shows technical data, so it is valid (though I'm somewhat puzzled on the VoiceNews polls). Impru20 (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

In any case, I may agree for a text field to be added only if it is relevant enough. In this case, it in no case would be 28 August, but 20 August instead (when Tsipras' resignation and a snap election were announced). From that point onwards, opinion polls clearly began to show a different voting pattern than before. Also, because by the time of Parliament dissolution, a snap election was already inevitable from the legal point of view (no other party being able to command a majority in Parliament virtually ensuring it would happen). If a moment is to be vital in the changing of mind of the Greek public opinion, it would be 20 August, not 28 August, where Parliament dissolution would pass unnoticed by most Greeks and would not affect their minds really, more so than the announcement on 20 August. Impru20 (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, if events are to be covered in a Background section within the article, the addition of events to the opinion polling table itself would already be pointless, since most readers would already come up their minds with the background section. Impru20 (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether this would be moved to another article or not. Keep in mind that, since this election has been held too close to the previous one (just 8 months later), there's not that much background info or opinion polls to be added. So they could co-exist within the same article without any issue, specially since the table's sortability function allows for very little space to be wasted by the opinion polling section.

On the most appropiate date, the announcement on 20 August is most likely to have influenced voters than the Parliament's dissolution on 28 August. And this has been already observed in two features: (a) the sharp differences on voting intention from those opinion polls made before 20 August and those made after; and (b) the fact that opinion polls had already began to pop up after 20 August, well before Parliament's dissolution on the 28th.

You say your edits are based on precedent on other articles. I already pointed out that mine's too. If we are to abide by precedents, there are many more precedents showing no in-table information nor text fields than those that do include them. Including Greek articles themselves; no user suggested to include in-table information in previous elections, and it was sort of unspoken consensus to leave it as such.

Yes, I noticed the 3R and wanted to avoid coming that (which I would rather not, really), but keep in mind that it is just unfair that I can't press forward my opinion on the article while you can, due to our different editing positions. No text fields were added before in previous Greek elections opinion polling tables by any user, so at the very least it sounds like you are breaking the precedent on Greek opinion polling. Since you say you abide by precedent, and in that regard your edit would be controversial due to it lacking a precedent in Greek articles (and many others, but specially Greek ones), it only seems logical to me to leave the article in the previous, uncontroversial version with no in-table information until the issue is solved.

On the GPO poll date issue, you are right; I'll add the publication date for know, since it contradicts the published fieldwork date.

Btw, thank you for coming up with a Background section. I had wished to do it but was too busy on other issues to get some time for it. Impru20 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Snyrna 03.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wishing you a Happy New Year on behalf of WikiProject Athletics! You can read of some of the project's achievements this year at the project talk page (please feel free to add your own thoughts and achievements!). SFB 18:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yannismarou, seeing that you are a member of the Wikiproject Greece group and deal mostly with ancient history, I am letting you know that there is currently an ongoing proposal to have an ancient greek wikipedia created, so you are welcomed to participate and share your thoughts, as well as participate in the actual incubator wiki. Best regards. Gts-tg (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yannismarou.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

  Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

  Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)