User talk:Sysin

Image:Hoplite.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hoplite.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ChrisO 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC) -- ChrisO 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data FYROM etc.[edit]

Please do not re-create these deprecated templates. Your user page was the lone instance in all of Wikipedia that was using them, and they will be deleted again if re-created. Please use the existing standard templates to display the flags on your user page. Andrwsc 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely missing the point. I am aware of the Macedonia naming dispute, but I could care less about it. What I do care about is the maintenance of the templates created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. Specifically, the system we have created is to include a single instance of "Country_data" templates for each flag, and that instance is named after the main article on Wikipedia. Therefore, we have Template:Country data Republic of Macedonia because the main article for that nation is Republic of Macedonia. Second, any nation that has a ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code for it, will also have a corresponding redirect for that code (in this case, Template:Country data MKD is the redirect). What you did was:

create a new, parallel country_data structure that did not point to the main article name
create a redirect from an abbreviation that is not in the ISO list
use these two main-space templates only to support your user page, which is inappropriate

The correct way to render a different label for the text string when using the {{flag}} template is to use the "name=" argument, as specified in the documentation page. You could have accomplished the same thing on your user page by {{flag|MKD|name=FYROM}}, for example.

I had thought I was doing you a favor by editing your user page so that no redlink was left as part of our WikiProject cleanup process. Instead, you were extremely incivil to me on my talk page. In the future, I shall leave you to clean up any redlinks yourself. However, I will continue to speedy delete any new templates created outside the standard mechanism that are used solely to support your vanity page. Andrwsc 18:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone[edit]

To be honest, I'm not really happy with your version either because it's basically unsourced mudslinging. If we could have the names and a few quotes from real academics on the FYROM theory, then fine, the facts can speak for themselves. Can you think of anything?--Domitius 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sysin. Καταλαβαίνω. My only worry is that there is so much invented material that comes out that it would occupy endless pages to disprove. Isnt'it better to cut it out from the article and simply create a new one for the ridiculuous, though government backed material? Also remember that many genuine scientists of that country - while loving their land and its name, disagree and disapprove of this type of material/propaganda. (ps. it is better off the page) Filika Politis 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Sysin, you misunderstood me, I have no problem with mudslinging providing it is sourced. If there is a non-partisan source saying "the FYROM theory is utter bullshit", then fine (we have such sources on their theories on their "sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" theory). Do we have any mainstream sources which are critical of the theory?--Domitius 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but the critical text in your version was unsourced (had no reliable source backing it up), so it cannot be included (see WP:ATT and WP:V). Including the FYROM theory as facts is also unacceptable because it violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight (i.e. it's a fringe theory).--Domitius 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - how is it now? There is no proof that their government is involved (I also think it's unlikely - it's more likely the spontaneous effects of decades of brainwashing and people are desperate to cook up their own theories on how connected they are to ancient Macedonia). It's also unsourced that it's scientists in general from FYROM who are making up these theories. Check Alexander Donski for example, the historian without an academic degree in history (according to that article at least). Taking criticism too far just makes people not take what they read seriously.--Domitius 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better now?--Domitius 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Kseris esi...

Ehis apolito dikio. Simfono apolita mazi sou. Stile mou ean thelis ena e-mail na to kanonisoume... Prepi na eimaste enomenoi san mia grothia, outososte na antimetopisoume kathe mellontiki proklisi ( ena 2° ypourg. eks. ) ... :D Ti les? Efharisto. --Asteraki 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist[edit]

I've just been reviewing your contributions. Your editing record is a pretty awful litany of nationalist POV-pushing, repeatedly deleting the name "Republic of Macedonia" from articles and replacing it with other formulations. Frankly, you're not contributing anything useful. Wikipedia is not the UN, not Greece and not the EU, and it's not bound by the standards of any of those entities. Our use of terminology is governed by WP:NAME and WP:NCON, which is why the Republic of Macedonia article has that title. It's not appropriate for you to be trying to overturn this by stealth, and your edit warring especially isn't acceptable.

I'm therefore requesting that you desist from this disruptive conduct. If you continue you will face action that could lead to you being blocked from Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Florina[edit]

The hypothesis you put into the Florina article regarding its name is very appealing, but if you cannot show any sources, it is just that - a hypothesis. Please mention the sources of this information. Andreas ^(T) 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Svenizelos.jpg[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Svenizelos.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

benaroya dates[edit]

thank you for your quick and helpful response. i will investigate the source that you provided further. dgl 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misirkov[edit]

I dont understand who are the "sides" at Krste Misirkov? Actually Bulgarian historians are more admitting of the irrational nature of Misirkov. In the Republic of Macedonia he was chosen as the "most important Macedonian figure" of the 20th century: [1] Mr. Neutron 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Kukush[edit]

Hello, I would like to avoid an edit conflict so let us reach an agreement. First, the town was liberated not just taken from the Ottomans.

Second, the battle: the Bulgarians were not defeated, this is what the Greeks claim. That was a strategic retreat to better positions. The Bulgarian army was greatly outnumbered by the Greeks and the landscape around Kukush is rather flat. So you might consider it a Greek victory as the battlefield remained in Greek hands but the Bulgarians achieved their aim: to save the army and eventually defeat the enemy.

When the Bulgarians retreated to the Kresna gorge which was a good position, the Greek army was surrounded and only the peace saved it from a complete disaster; the Serbs were defeated at Kalimantsi, so the only reason for the disaster in the Second Balkan War was the interference of Romania and Turkey, not a military success by the Greeks and Serbs. Regards, --Gligan 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The defeat in the war and the loss of territory was not because of that battle but because of the treacherous advance of Romanian and Turkish troops. The Greek army was effectively stopped at Kresna where the terrain is mush more appropriate for a defence than Kukush. In Stanligrad the case is different: Hitler did not allow a strategic retreat and his army was surrounded and destroyed, only a few thousand managed to pull back to the west. At Kukush the Bulgarians saved their army to defeat the Greeks later.

In fact you know the absurd demands of the Greeks and the Serbs to Bulgaria: the first wanted a border at 30 km to the south of Plovdiv and 90 km from Sofia; the Serbs wanted Vidin and a border along the Struma. Only the successes at Kresna and Kalimantsi and later Doiran in WW1 saved the country from at least these claims.

The plan of the Greeks and the Serbs was to take Sofia and dictate the peace terms from there but after the Greek army was surrounded at Kresna, the Greek prime minister hastily agreed to a truce. Regards, --Gligan 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYROM edit[edit]

I am puzzled. How is this edit compatible with the footnote you wrote to WP:MOSMAC on the Eurovision Song Contest? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek people, who have Greece as their national state and have an elected Government that clearly has an opinion on the matter, are clearly a sub-topic of Greece.sys < in 06:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine I[edit]

Thanks for the message. I have just posted my reasons here Talk:Constantine I of Greece. But I will add one more here (repeating myself): The category is about Greeks in World War I, and not Participants from Greece in World War I or People in the Greek affairs in WWI. I haven't seen a single source that describe him as Greek (ethnically), rather the sources seen so far emphasize his non-Greek roots. Finally, I will repeat, my last argument Are Barbarossa and Henry V, French? They both were kings of France!... Finally, I do not wish trouble, but to me adding Constantine I of Greece, Queen Sophia as Greeks in WWI is plainly wrong, but I will accept it only if sources are presented. A.Cython (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I removed the category... please provide sources at the talk page that state that he was Greek. Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Korizis.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Korizis.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Greekkey.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Greekkey.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PhoebeSnow.jpg needs authorship information.[edit]

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:PhoebeSnow.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Sysin}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Svenizelos.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Svenizelos.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Sysin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Sysin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Petrobey.gif[edit]

The file File:Petrobey.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Met English[edit]

The article Met English has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable computer language

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Met English[edit]

The article Met English has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could only find passing mentions and false positives in a WP:BEFORE on GBooks

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Met English for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Met English 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/Met English until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Green Monday[edit]

The article Green Monday has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not a real holiday. It has no relevance for the encyclopedia as it's more of a slide in an internal PowerPoint presentation at eBay in 2007. When articles about people and whole organizations are not accepted for not being relevant, an article like this definitely shouldn't exist.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]