Dimboukas

Ήθελα να σε ρωτήσω πως μπορείς να κάνεις μια φωτογραφία collage?? Ποια είναι η ιστοσελίδα που πρεπει να χρησιμοποιήσεις? Γιατί θελω να κάνω ενα για την Λευκωσία. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findblogging (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Omonoia station on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. J Milburn 19:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you explainwhy you are changing {{polytonic}} to {{unicode}} for Greek display? I'm not sure it's a good idea; in IE the font choices for "polytonic" may be more suitably tailored to the display of Greek text, and in my Firefox display the polytonic comes out as a nicer font too. Also, I think "polytonic" adds a Greek language tag to the html output, which may be useful for some purposes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean. In general, IE does not automatically select fonts suitable to display uncommon Unicode characters, it has to be explicitly told what font to use. Other browsers will automatically try to find some font that supports a given character. The {{Polytonic}} and {{Unicode}} tags were designed to address this display problem specifically for IE. However, "Polytonic" was recently changed in such a way that it now seems to be affecting other browsers' display choices too; in my case with a positive effect (I use the Mozilla Firefox)

I know a lot of work has gone into tweaking the Polytonic template so as to make it optimally helpful for users, so I guess unless you know exactly what you are doing...

Have you got display problems in your browser setup?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

==Fall of the Roman Empire=='I think you agree with me when I change the date of the Fall of Rome from 1453 to 476. Many say that the de jure end of Roman Empire was not until the fall of Constantinople by the Turks. But it's not only the "official end" but the whole change of the mentality and of the general view: another language, other civilisation, other people with whom the Byzantines got in touch. After the fall of Rome the kings were not again Romans and the next "Roman Empire" was the "holy" one ruled by Germans. After all I please you to support me when I change the date of the end. Also many historitians say that the Roman Empire ended then. Dimboukas (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dimboukas, I believe you are right that is the best historiography to apply. As mentioned, if the article was going to claim to cover the full history of the Roman state from the reign of Augustus then it should give equal coverage to that full history. I think, though, that is too much for one article so the 27 - 476 is appropriate, especially given that this is the commonly used methodology.

As yet I have not seen anybody trying to undo your change. If you discuss on the article's talk page I'll chime in. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please reinsert the Greek in the Macedon article before the kingdom and put these references in it.Insert footnote text here</ref>.You probably know how.

• The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History: Revised Edition by Colin McEvedy,ISBN-10: 0140513485,2003 ,Page 62,"... demon strate that not even the forces of nature could thwart the advance of the Great King. The most northerly Greek state, the Kingdom of Macedon, had already submitted to Xerxes' envoys: Thessaly did not resist either. ..."
• The Art of War in Western World by Archer Jones,ISBN-10: 0252069668,2000, Page 21,"... King Philip of the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon perfected this system,and his son, Alexander the Great, used it to conquer Greece and the Persian Empire. ..."

Megistias (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please contribute here Prehistoric BalkansMegistias (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've updated the code, and the documentation. Here's the additional code you'll need to stick in:

|image_map2 = Example.jpg
|image_map2_caption = Heeere's Johnny!

It should work without blowing anything else up, I've already checked it in my sandbox and in an article that's not using a double map. Enjoy. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You changed the article unilaterally and without dialogue. So, you owe explanations.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked you for a short while (12h) for revert-warring over the Byzantine Empire article. Even though your latest four reverts seem to have been spread over slightly more than 24h, they were in a series of protracted revert-warring over several days (at least tree more reverts in the days before), and you were clearly editing against consensus, as well as failing to engage in talkpage discussion as Yannis noticed. I hope you'll return to a more constructive attitude when you come back from the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please don't edit under anon IPs elsewhere while you are blocked. You can use this talk page under your own account. If you wish to edit elsewhere to conduct a constructive discussion, I can unblock you if you promise to keep away from those reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I promise. Unblock me please. But I do want to discuss.85.73.63.242 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I hope you can get this worked out with Yannis and the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a reason for having two maps in the infobox. I understand the way you think, but I support the current infobox as it is. After all, the article is already burdened with too many maps. I'd prefer to remove some of them, and not add more. And historians disagree about many things. Some them say BE starts with Constantine, others with Heraclius, others with Justinian. Does this mean that we should have 3 or 4 maps in the infobox about its peak?! In any case, you can present your case in the article's talk page and seek consensus. You will find that some editors with whom you are now edit-warring may be very co-operative, and ready to have a sincere scientific dialogue with you.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I believe may seem extraordinary for many other wikipedians but in the lesson of History I learnt that the empire reached its Zenith not with Justinian but with Basil. And it is not only the geographical expansion but also the cultural which is usually a result of economical flourishing which was achieved by Basil. I would also support that the map if the infobox may be that of 1025.85.73.63.242 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I myself was thought that it reached it`s peak during the reign of Justinian and in the history Atlas i wound the main map of the BE being the one under Justinain.But the bottom line is that we all consider that the map under Justinian is much more important, as his age was a reference point for all that followed to the throne of Constantinopol(/Nicea)....that`s why his statue was in front of Haghia Sophia!As for the date, time and again we said, and I pretty much think that we can prove that 330 is probably the best knowned year for the "birth" of the Empire(although I still say that 476 is equally mentioned and a good reference). AdrianCo (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You mean thet we should change the date from 330 to 476? But I continue to insist that we have to use the other map. Also the area which was reconquested by Justinian was soon lost again. Dimboukas (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It always causes problems when art templates are vertical; art articles should always have an image at the top, and generally space for images is always very limited. It would be greatly preferable if the template was redone horizontally. See also the Visual arts Manual of Style. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Θα μπορούσες να μου εξηγήσεις περιληπτικά πώς κατασκεύασες τα αρχεία SVG στο άρθρο Kingdom of Greece και με ποιο πρόγραμμα; Dimboukas (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dimboukas. I use Adobe Illustrator CS2. Download any .AI, .EPS or .SVG graphics file to your PC, and Illustrator will allow you to open and modify the graphics/artwork. Personally, I prefer to create the graphics in .AI or .EPS format first and then save them as .SVG (which I then upload into Wikipedia). Hope that helps. Cheers.Dragases (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I gave you a drawing depicting a coat of arms, would you be able to draw a SVG file based on it? Dimboukas (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It depends on the complexity of the coat of arms. The coat of arms and flags I've created were put together using existing vector graphics template files. All I've done was use these templates and made simple modifications to them using Adobe Illustrator - I don't have time to spend on drawing them from the beginning (otherwise I'd be creating alot more graphics). To create a vectored image from a standard compressed file (JPG, BMP etc.) is tricky and I'm not sure I'll be able to do this. Send the picture to cdragases@hotmail.com and I'll tell you if I can do it or not. Dragases (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why are you removing the map of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian? Clearly that is larger than the empire under Basil. It can be seen here [1] [2]

As seen by those maps it was roughly that size. Please stop putting inaccurate information up. Red4tribe (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you wish to add that in the article, that is fine. But saying it reached its peak in 1025, during Basil's reign, is very misleading. The greatest extent of the Empire was in 550, during Justinian's reign. It is worth to mention what you are saying the article, but I do not believe that it is best to put on the infobox. Red4tribe (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are correct in saying that economiclly, culturally, etc... that was it's greatest time. But, for most(I won't say all) empire maps, they show the greatest extent, not the size of the empire when it's economy was the strongest. A godo example of this is Hitler's empire. You look at a map of his empire, it is probably going to say 1942 and not 1940, although in 1940 they were more stable and successful. Red4tribe (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, clearly we are at a disagreement, we will have to see what others think.

Red4tribe (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting points made gentlemen, but I want to see what others have to say too so lets move to the talk page of the article. Tourskin (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I used Inkscape to make this logo - it's great, the only vector program I've ever used but easy to figure out and free. Gisbwoy (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please suggest a more appropriate name for the following image you once uploaded. File:101 0022.jpg, so that it can be renamed to a more meaningful name. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is this a problem? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I may interject here, the Nom-Acc-Gen-Dat order favoured by Notpietru makes some good sense linguistically (Nom and Acc are the two most basic structural cases, and usually most similar to each other), and is occasionally used in modern linguistic literature. Nom-Gen-Dat-Acc, on the other hand, is the traditional order inherited from ancient grammar writers, without any factual motivation beyond that. Both orders are acceptable and "correct"; however, since most other articles including the Ancient Greek nouns article currently seem to be using the traditional Nom-Gen-Dat-Acc, I would personally recommend leaving it at that and not changing an isolated instance in the main article only. – That said, could you both please avoid making blanket reverts with no edit summary or "vandalism" edit summaries in such matters? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I hadn't realised it was appearing as "vandalism"...it just seemed the most efficient way to revert information. Apologies for any distress this may have caused - I'll consider manual reverts. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just came across this new image. Nice collage, but could you please add source declarations? Collages need source and license information for each component picture. A small list with wikilinks to the original uploads and preferably a note about the author and license of each would be good. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the links. Since those three other photographs are new, would you perhaps be willing to also upload those separately? They look really nice, especially the evening shot of Lykabettos. Great work! BTW, I didn't remember the Schliemann villa having those gilded ironwork railings. Was it recently overhauled?

I haven't really got much of an opinion about what best to place in the infobox. Feel free to experiment!

Μ'αρέσουν πολύ αυτές οι φωτογραφίες σου από την Αθήνα, είναι πολύ χαρακτηριστικές. Πάντα μου θυμίζουν κάτι διακοπές και επισκέψεις οικογενειακές που έκανα. Μήπως ζεις κάπου εκεί πέρα κοντά στην Πατισίων; :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Στην Κυψέλη μένω, δίπλα στην Πατησίων!

dear Dimboukas, during the last week I enhanced the article of the saxon-greek architect de:Ernst Ziller by the factor of six. I found many pictures to illustrate my text but one problem exists: there is no foto on commons (or elsewhere) of his grave on the First Cemetery of Athens. at least ten years ago it was there in a bad shape. I don't how it is today. I have seen that you made a nice landscape picture of the cemetary. Do you have an idea how I could get a foto for my Ziller article? thx in advances for any help --de:Jbergner --95.157.18.206 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jbergner, although I took the picture of Schliemann's tomb at the First Cemetery of Athens which is designed by Ziller, I really don't know where Ziller's tomb is. I am not sure if you can find any picture of Ziller's tomb with the suitable permission in the Internet. You probably have to wait until someone uploads his own picture. Dimboukas (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please stop moving this page. As you can see on the talk page there was a discussion which came to the consensus that the page should be named "Ohi Day" as opposed to "Ochi Day". Since there was a discussion and an agreement, you cannot move it without starting another discussion. Grk1011 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dimboukas, hope you are fine.
I’ve readded {{Expand section}} and {{Expand lead}} to Theodoros Angelopoulos' article because I really think they (both Angelopoulos and the article) deserve more and better. The template {{Expand lead}} is being considered for deletion, but, in my humble opinion, it is very important and very useful because it is the part that will be (eventually) featured (published and printed) on the offline version of Wikipedia (paper/CD/DVD: please see the chapter: "Provide an accessible overview" off the Lead section's guideline of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection.)
It is about the same for the Bio section; three, and very short, paragraphs are not enough for him. (I've added a quote by Martin Scorses about Angelopoulos taken from the back cover of The Films of Theo Angelopoulos: A Cinema of Contemplation by Andrew Horton, and I hope to do more in the future.)
I really hope those templates will push some readers to add more infortmation and contribute to Angelopoulos' article, and this is the reason why I placed them on that page.
If you disagree... feel free to remove those templates from the page.
Please, contact me with any questions and I will be happy to help if I can.
All the best and happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Pjoef, I absolutely agree that Angelopoulos' article deserves more. However, I am not sure if those templates really push editors to make more edits. I thought they make the article look rough, not neat. I have no problem leaving those templates!.Dimboukas (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Update (2012-03-21)

I have just added the introducory section to Theodoros Angelopoulos' article hopefully by summarizing its most important aspects. Please take a look at the article and see if it is okay. Much more work remains to be done, but I hope this is a small step forward. All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion this is very good and with references. Write whatever you think with nice style and citations. After all, it seems I am no senior in Wikipedia than you! Dimboukas (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

For this. Terrific catch of my inattentiveness. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 02:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear it! Dimboukas (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

New WP:CONSENSUS Building. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Γειά σου, could you kindly explain your undoing of my edit and what you mean by "the small differences between the two versions are lost"? I think the differences are still very clear to see and keeping a transliteration which writes "η" as "e" is very unintuitive. Maybe put your answer also on the discussion page of the article, as readers are confused by the version I tried to change and this topic was raised there at least two times (see the last two sections there). Also, according to ALA-LC, "[o]ther diacritical marks, such as the smooth breathing, the coronis, acute, circumflex, and grave accents, and the diaeresis, as well as iota subscript and adscript, are omitted in romanization" (page 2) - so, your statement at your revision, "romanization used here is a valid one, according to ALA-LC, and is perfectly suitable", is not accurate. By the way, you also undid the changes to the lang templates I made. Also, I don't think the ALA-LC, being "used to represent bibliographic information by North American libraries", should be preferred for a quoted text (not bibliographic metadata) over a transliteration that is practised in Greece itself. Just now I found out that our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek) state to follow ISO 843 instead. So, I think we should do that. What do you think? Regards, -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Γεια σου φίλε συγχρήστη! First of all no romanization of Greek is a 100% phonetic one, even the one most commonly used is an approximation. I'm not saying that the romanization you used is wrong or unuseful; I have used it to transliterate whole phrases in Modern Greek grammar. My problem with your edit is that if an unaccustomed with Greek reader reads that section, it's much easier for him to grasp the differences. I think that your minuteness is missing the point of this section, after all no user unaccustomed to Greek is going to read that section and get confused by the romanization. I suggest we add a note about the romanization we use. Dimboukas (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Lang-grc-gre has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply