User talk:Antipastor

Well== Welcome! ==

Welcome to Wikipedia, Antipastor! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vandal-fighting efforts

Thanks for all you've done to combat vandalism in your brief stint as Wikipedia editor. You may want to check out WP:VAND for more information on vandalism and tools to revert it more quickly and efficiently. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed speedy deletion tag: User:Chitresh verma

Hi Antipastor! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on User:Chitresh verma- because: the page is not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, but I fail to see how the page was vandalism while it was in main space. Don't forget not to bite newbies, in this case I think that moving to userspace and explaining the user's error is the correct thing to do, a lot of newbs take a lot of offence at having their good faith edits labelled as vandalism. Sorry I left you a note which makes it sound like I removed the speedy, I use a script which obviously doesn't have a good enough edit conflict catcher. Anyhow, thanks for removing the speedy, and keep up your npp, the more eyes we have at Special:Newpages the better IMO :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for making amends with the user :)

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on Macedonian language. Sorry! Jingby (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled El-Khweldi El-Hamedi

Hi, I have removed the prod template in favor of the AfD debate. I agree that we should remove this article once and for all. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your so speedy clean-up of my article on Rita Atria. Soler97 (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Antipastor. Could enable emailing on your account, at Special:Preferences? I wish to contact you via email. Thanks, JamieS93 03:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, OK, I confirmed my email. Antipastor (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great- Source section

This source is not just a link to an author and historians' website. It leads to a 1 hour podcast discussion, aired in the UK, with two other boni fide historians. I think it is at least at importance as some of the other links, such as art exhibits, etc., therefore I must respectfully disagree. Why do you not at least listen to the podcast before making an opinion? Mugginsx (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I learned something about providing links yesterday from you. Thank you for that and mostly the way that you explained it. Your reasons were sound. I do try to read Wiki rules, etc., by there is a vast amount to learn. Thanks for the help. Mugginsx (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was Wiki-Bold and took out one of the segment I thought was irrelevent and conjecture. I hope I don't get verbally hammered! Wish me luck! Mugginsx (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mugginsx, indeed this seems quite a bold edit, so congratulations on that! You won't be verbally hammered, but there could be disagreement, so be ready to discuss the edit in this case (check out WP:BRD if you want, just an essay with general info). Due to my time zone I cannot look into real detail until tomorrow, but I can briefly say that I agree that this part was not exceptional content and was poorly written, but it was sourced; so probably it could be better rephrased so that something about the historians' speculation about his relationship with Hephaestion is kept, but eliminating the confusion and anything irrelevant. Cheers! Antipastor (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your advice. I did not think you were in the same time zone. There cannot be that many insominacs such as myself. Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hadn't occurred to me either, a nice coincidence! Regarding the other edit, a rewording is not extremely easy after all, but I might give it a try too some time (if I think of a way to improve it). Antipastor (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

Dear antipastor read the edit history before you start making claims. I restored the ORIGINAL version that was agreed upon and that does not make dubious claims. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wandalstouring, and thanks for the message. I think you indeed improved the grammar, but I have been working on this article for a long time, and I can assure you that the "original" version is the one I restored. No harm in discussing any change on the talk page and getting some other opinions and a consensus before making such a change. Regards. Antipastor (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already reverted... please check the history and self-revert if you want when you verify what I am saying... anyway I do not want to engage in a lengthy debate, or a revert-war but I think such a change really needs more discussion. Antipastor (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than we disagree on that issue. And it's not my first edit in this field. I put that Alexander's family claims Greek origin, this is based ultimately about Herodot's history of the Olympic competition where his ancestor Alexander ran. The Greeks according to this story were astonished because they thought Macedonians were barbarians. My version does not dispute any claim he is Greek, but doesn't fail to mention that Greeks could consider Macedonians not-Greek. And no, this doesn't imply Macedonians weren't Greek or there aren't many scholars supporting Alexander was Greek. It's neutral conserning this, but it neither makes bold statements that conceal the struggle about ethnicity that is reported. If you have I better idea for phrasing this difficult issue I'm all ears. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for replying, I meant the edit and talk histories where this has been debated innumerable times. I don't have a better idea for the wording, but I have no objection with the previous/current one. I think that this is unambiguous about Alex III individually for many reasons; I think the articles on Alex. I or the Argead dynasty are places where something like the proposed change would be more appropriate; on Macedon or Macedonians, lengthier expositions are preferred, as per your last point. In any case, I do not intend to contest such edits if there has been a discussion on the talk page (even if I am not sure I have the will to participate again very actively), since I have been convinced now that this is not an extremely important part of the article; that being said, we can't just change it lightly, especially if a few editors don't agree. I hope this clarifies my objection. Cheers Antipastor (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Antipastor. Thanks for taking part in the discussion. I think I have to explain also to you some aspects of the changes that I desire. If you followed the discussion it will be easy. Otherwise, you may need more explanation. But let me try, please. I want to say that the right word to use is "Hellenes" (Ἕλληνες). The Greeks would be also happy about it, because they are calling themselves today "ellenika" (ελληνικά), what is the same.

And the right formulation of the first sentence is that

1. Alexander the Great was a king of Macedon (and not Greek king as it is stated now)

2. and that his dynasty and he claimed Hellenic origins (which is disputed, as somebody else mentioned and I think we can put it in the text).

But

3. Stating that he was a “Greek king” does not make much sense since Fillip II was also a king of Macedon and he was having a war against Greeks. His son could not all of a sudden be a Greek king. He was never accepted as a Greek king though. He was more a head of the alliance against Persians. Of course, after his death, Macedonians practically occupied the entire Greece and diadochi were as such “Greek kings” also. No secondary biography of Alexander ever stated something like “the Macedonians and the OTHER Greeks”. Yes, there are some ambiguous places but it appears that the connotations are to the king (who claimed his Hellenic ancestors). As I specified in the discussion in an answer to one other editor, we can not and should not use sometimes subjective, ethnic or cultural connotation but we have to follow political history. Applied to the Ancient Greece - as it is customary to say when we talk about Southern Balkan in the ancient times, the political situation we are concerned with here had for the main political subjects Macedonian kingdom and the Hellenes, i.e., Hellenic city-states. The term “Ancient Greece” is a technical term meant for the history books only, and does not imply that what is given in a particular book following that heading that this belongs inevitably to Greece as we see it today. I think now that this is the cause of the disputes on these pages.

However, Alexander wanted very much to bring his Macedonians into the great nation of the Hellenes. And he, as I think, succeeded in this in the end, but not only through the wars; the process was long and more through the language at first, and then through education, science and culture. OK?

I think that we may have a concensus now. Thanks very much again.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the statements by Draganparis. I will add that he was a member of the Argead dynasty because that's a rather longlived institution for Greece. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, this is kind of Royal decision. Interestingly, Alexander would in a similar circumstances give grounds for his decision to his generals... And this sounds also just fine. At least number of GoogWicks will applaud. O.K. Do these changes please. Even "Geek Argead dynasty" would be O.K. (with or without stating doubts about this which Hammond and particularly Borza expressed). But to state just "Geek king" is false.Draganparis (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR ACCUSATIONS on my Talk page: Why you have such "impression"? I think because you are just fulfilling your patriotic duties. I suspect, please excuse me if I am wrong, that you are either employed by FYROM (what is less likely) or by Greece (what is more likely) and acting in concordance with 3 or 4 similar professionals or patriots. That “gang” is replacing “Macedonia” with “Greece” all over the places. I can not grasp why and how these are profiting from this: FYROM may be by reserving for that state the name of “Macedonia”, or Greece, may be is attracted by a kind of pan-Hellenism? Anyway, in the meantime, history pages on Wikipedia suffer enormously from bias. Last year my password was even broken, I complained (see may Talk page), no ADMINISTRATOR intervened and I stopped being interested for editing for more then a year. I suspect then that even the "administrator" is in the gang. I just started again last month, and you and your collaborators (my hypothesis only) are reacting. I find it very patriotic and quite normal. But damaging for Wikipedia. I will have to abandon Wikipedia for some time again if nobody would stop this gang in their destructive activity.Draganparis (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Draganparis. If you want only, you can state your defense on this page. For example, do you deny using the alternative account or do you claim a legitimate reason? The talk-page tags you see are automated and only indicate that there is a suspicion of using a sockpuppet, no proof of anything yet. If I am wrong there is no reason to worry, these will be removed and someone will look at the case independently. Otherwise, however, it is not acceptable to use an undisclosed "sockpuppet" to advance your opinion in edit disputes, and no need to reply with accusations if you think I am mistaken; I just noted the striking conicidences of the two accounts' contributions. Regards. Antipastor (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New puppets of Draganparis?

I think that our dear friend Draganparis has put into play some more sock accounts. See here [1], [2], [3] for the history of the accounts as well as here [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] for their modus operandi and phraseology used. As I see it, in the first investigation, the sock account was banned, Draganparis was not (his ban was about disruptive editing) and the case now is closed. I sincerely think that it should reopen with new evidence of yet more sock accounts. He also trolls Wikipedia in a crusade against us, stating his usual lies and POVS, although his utterly aggressive style and conspiracy theories have only attracted scorn. I don't really worry about this but I confess I am a bit wary as to how he can disrupt future discussions. See what should be done, thx GK1973 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Magazine

I'm not sure if you realise that this is a magazine aimed at the upper end of the antiques/arts magazine, and not a scholarly journal. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I wanted to add the word "amateur" to describe the author of the article in question, but when I saw this I was in doubt. You are right of course, but I think it is still useful as a reference, since the recent forgery discussions originate from it. Antipastor (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexander the Great/GA1

Alexander the Great is being reviewed for Good Article listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow for minor issues related to coverage and authorial tone to be addressed. Any assistance would be welcomed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your note of encouragement in my early days. (see 11 January 2010 (UTC) I still read it if I get discouraged and remember there are kind editors like you. Mugginsx (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]