User talk:Cypriot stud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cypriot stud, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! You can also use the Wikipedia:Non-administrator's noticeboard

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Super Idol[edit]

Hi! Thanks for fixing up some of my mistakes in the Super Idol page. I can speak Greek better than I can write it! Thanks again, Skyscraper297 07:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Are you Greek?

Moving pages[edit]

Hi

Don't "move" a page by copy/pasting its content - this breaks the Wikipedia licecing as it loses page history. If you can't do a move by the move button, request it on WP:RM. --Kiand 23:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods[edit]

Hi -- it appeared to me that you removed some information that may be arguably redundant but isn't per se redundant. I've reverted the change. If you believe that the information should still be removed, please discuss on Talk:Tiger Woods. Thanks. --Nlu 09:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Kelly Clarkson[edit]

Hi. I have reverted some of your recent edits to the Kelly Clarkson article. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), "Capitalise the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations"." Also, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics, song titles should not be in italics, but in double quotation marks. Additionally, please consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. Don't worry if you find all of this confusing...I used to make mistakes like this too. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Ethnicity[edit]

Hello, please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies), nationality should go in the header not ethnic makeup. Regards Arniep 00:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing nationalities from biographies. If you want to change our policies, discuss the matter first. Thanks, Mark1 14:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark1. Go to the discussion on the Jennifer Aniston article. I'm not removing the nationalities at all.

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Mark1 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hi. When you reverted Christina Aguilera you reverted a whole bunch of changes that it doesn't seem you meant to, including removing interwiki links to the swedish and chinese translations. Can you be more careful in future? Morwen - Talk 10:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. Well I have to say be prepared for it in the future, people do that to me all the time and it really annoys me.
Anyway, sorry again.

Please stop[edit]

You seem to be on some sort of mission to change "American" to "American born" everywhere you go. Please stop. Its against the Manual of Style and also just plain convention. Under your definition, every American but Native Americans would be considered "American born". At some point, it becomes vandalism. Stop. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As funny as it may seem to you, I consider what you do vandalism. How is it against the manual of style? It says to state the nationality, which means a person's status or relationship to a particular country by birth, descent, or naturalisation. So, to call Jennifer Aniston American only fits the first meaning. My version fits the first two (the last is unnecessary for this particular person, but it would be the case for Prince Philip, for example).
Wikipædia is about editing to get the best and most appropriate information, and I'm so surprised that 'talented' Wikipædians like yourselves cannot even see this.
I've stated that maybe the 'born' in 'American-born' isn't the best word, but after all it shows her nationality in the first meaning (relation of a person to a country by birth).
I've made a post on the manual of style page, and it needs to be sorted, because I can't see why I should stop making something fully correct for the sake of people not willing to cooperate.
Leon.
I've been here a year. I'm an admin. Don't think I've ever been called a vandal. The problem I have is that you keep doing this despite lack of consensus on your side. "Sake of people not willing to cooperate". Well, if you can get others to be on your side and make it a consensus, that's one thing, but from what I've seen, you do these things unilaterally. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you're trying to say. Whether you're an admin or not, whether you've been here for a year or a hundred years makes no difference. This isn't about getting people on my side. It's about the meaning of 'nationality', which I've explained hundreds of times and I have evidence of it (anybody with a dictionary does), and people are rude to me and refuse to accept the meaning and brush it off as though I'd never said, and as though I'm a vandal. Sorry, but you are the vandals.

Leon.

I'm a native speaker of English, and to me, American implies American-born, but American-born actually implies but not American. So, you are damaging any entry where you change "American" to "American-born" (because you lose the meaning of being an American), and I will work to revert those when I see it. But it'd be easier if you just stop. --Randal L. Schwartz 07:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, firstly, anybody 'American-born' is/was born in America, regardless of whether he/she is actually American or not (this is common sense). Secondly, as I have said a hundred or more times (although I'll continue to say it as people have a lack of understanding), the manual of style (biographies) states that the subject's nationality must be included in the introduction (please, please read and understand what I will now tell you because it's the most important thing). Nationality is, acoording to the dictionary, the relationship of a person to a particular country by birth, descent, or naturalization. Thus, to call, for example, Jennifer Aniston American agrees with the first meaning, yes? To call her Scottish, Greek, Italian, and English agrees with the second one, yes? So instead of favouring one meaning over the other, I decided to reword it in a way it completely fits the whole meaning of 'nationality' (excluding naturalization, which is unnecessary in this situation). So, based on the fact that the manual of style says you must include the nationality, AND based on what nationality actually is (something none of the editors seem to have checked or have a good knowledge about), I originally called Aniston an American-born actress of Greek, Italian, Scottish, and English descent. I was told not to include her actual descent as it was explained further on, so I then opted to call her a multiethnic (<<agreeing with the second meaning) American-born (<<agreeing with the first meaning) actress.
Finally, is that clear to you? Can you understand my fury at why people brand me a vandal (when in truth, you are the vandals, but I continue to give you chances and not 'report' you since I understand why you are doing what you are doing, which is in fair reason, I admit)? To call somebody born in America to non-American parents just American is 100% wrong. I was born in England to an English mother and a Greek-Cypriot father, and I wouldn't accept just being called English (I would want English-Cypriot). My version is the most sensible and best one to fit these people.
I have said that if the subject was born in a country to foreign parents of the same descent, then their nationality should be entitled with both of their 'originating' countries, i.e. actor Kirk Douglas was born in the USA to Belarusian parents, thus he is a Belarusian-American. The same applies when one of the subject's parents originate from a different country (providing they don't have mixed descent), thus Sherie Lunghi (who was born in England to an English mother and Italian father) is an English-Italian.
If the subject was born in a country to parents descending from different countries to each other (like Christina Aguilera was born in the US to an Ecuadorian father and an Irish mother), then she should become a biethnic American-born singer.
If the subject's descent is completely mixed (like Tiger Woods's for example, who was born in the USA to a Chinese-African-American-Native American Indian father and a Thai-Chinese-Dutch mother), then they should be entitled multiethnic American-born.
My theory makes total sense and actually agrees with the whole meaning of 'nationality' unlike yours.
Cypriot stud 12:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My dear... if a person holds an American (United States) passport, then his/her nationality is USA - commonly referred to as "American". It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter for how many generations the person's family has been in the country: the fact is, countries are humanly-defined by human borders. There is no universal definition of what constitutes a nation, or of the right of people to call themselves nationals of that country. Therefore we must accept the human definition of nationality - which is currently, simply, "what passport do you hold?". I hold the final word on this: I work in Immigration. So, please... believe me when I say that it is totally irrelevant even where the person in question was born, let alone their great-great grandparents.

Eurosong 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like bashing my head against a brick wall. You don't have proof that you work in immigration (for all I know you could be lying, but it's irrelevant anyway), and if you are correct about that then obviously it seems that they do different practices there. The current usage in immigration is bound to be different to what a nationality is. The manual of style states nationality, not citizenship (or what the immigration says). Nobody can argue with the dictionary, and that states "The relationship between one person and a country by birth, descent, or naturalisation" period. OK?
82.8.17.228 14:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK... as you say, "birth, descent, or naturalisation". So then, tell us why exactly someone born in America, and holding an American passport, should not be called an American national? By the way, the Immigration definition does gel with this: passports are given to those who fulfil certain combinations of these criteria. The issue of "descent" is, philosophically, a moot point. All humans are descended from one line through evolution from apes. The evolution was divergent, not convergent. The point at which the DNA from the last stage before homo sapiens (whatever stage it was called), evolved into homo sapiens, occurred somewhere on Earth. That place lies in a country today. Surely then, by "descent", we are all nationals of that country? Of course that is ridiculous...

Eurosong 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK... as you say, "birth, descent, or naturalisation". So then, tell us why exactly someone born in America, and holding an American passport, should not be called an American national?

To answer this, I never said that somebody born in the US holding an American passport should not be called an American national. Of course they are, but if their parents descend from a different country then to call them American only agrees with part of the meaning of 'nationality', whereas my suggestion agrees with all of the meanings.

The issue of "descent" is, philosophically, a moot point. All humans are descended from one line through evolution from apes. The evolution was divergent, not convergent. The point at which the DNA from the last stage before homo sapiens (whatever stage it was called), evolved into homo sapiens, occurred somewhere on Earth. That place lies in a country today. Surely then, by "descent", we are all nationals of that country? Of course that is ridiculous...

OK, yes we have all evolved from apes in South Africa, but you must agree when I say that after the passing of so many centuries and/or generations in x country, it's unlikely to consider oneself from y country, i.e., if John discovered on his family tree that his great-great-great-great grandfather was Norwegian, he wouldn't go around saying that he is one sixty-fourth Norwegian and sixty-three sixty-fourths whatever else. Plus this would be wrong anyway because everybody has a splash of foreign blood in them. I was born in England to an English mother and a Greek-Cypriot father, and I say I'm an English-Cypriot, or half English and half Cypriot, despite the fact some of my very distant ancestors could've been Portuguese or whatever. As for 'descent', if Gianpaolo was born in Canada to Italian parents, you would say: "Gianpaolo was born in Canada of Italian descent" (just as I am of English and Greek-Cypriot descent).
To conclude, there is absolute no need to delve into old scientific terms and history for this. Just take a look at a good dictionary. As I said, 'nationality' is the relationship or status of one person to a specific country by birth, descent, or naturalisation. If you people who have argued with me continue to write only the birth relationship, that gives me the right to delete that and put just the descent (or naturalisation) relationship, but because I research better and actually want to put the whole meaning down so it is fair, that's why I propose 'x-born multi/biethnic', or, if you think this is better, to actually state the origins, thus Jennifer Aniston becoming an American-born actress of Greek, Italian, English, and Scottish descent. Do you still think it is necessary to disagree with what's correct?
Cypriot stud 13:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the thing is that we Americans generally don't give a shit about from whom we've descended. The only people who make sure you know what their ethnicity is are elitists and extremists. So, only a blue-blood would insist you know that they're from such-and-such part of England or whatever, and only a member of the IRA, South Boston Division would insist on being called Irish instead of American. You don't know this, since you're not American (spelling "favouring" instead of "favoring" gave you away), so let me tell you. We have in America the idea that we're all "pure-bred American mutts", and if you ask most Americans, they'll know to what this refers. Very few people in our country are of one, easily identifiable, race. Even if you're white, we don't know what kind of white, or if you have some Indian heritage or whatever, and quite frankly, we generally don't care. Like I said before, only elitists and extremists care enough to point out that someone is one-quarter Irish, one-half Italian, one quarter Cherokee or whatever. The reason why you have so many people saying you're vandalizing these pages is that it rubs Americans the wrong way to be called "multi-ethnic American-born" or to hear fellow Americans referred to in that way. We've all grown up hearing that except for Indians, we're all a nation of immigrants. The only time anyone really calls anyone English-american or Chinese-american, etc. is when they're first-generation immigrants. After that, if you walk, talk, and act like an American, you are an American. Basically, you're never going to sell us Americans on this idea of yours to refer to all of us as "Multi-ethnic, American-born", and we constitute the majority of Wikipedians. If you get yourself banned for doing this, no one's going to see you as a martyr, and you're just currently pissing off a lot of Americans, and pissing off a lot of Wikipedians in general. So, I advise you to stop. R'son-W 20:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for actually being down-to-earth and non-abusive. I am not American, as you guessed correctly, but I understand what you're trying to say about multiethnic people residing in the US being angry about what certain people brand them as.
But please, please, please, please take note on what I've previously mentioned in every post on this topic: I'm not going by what these particular people brand you as, nor am I saying that yu care or don't care about your heritage — I'm going by the book! The Wikipedia manual of style states that we must state the subject's nationality, and the fact is, I am and you're not! I'm following what the dictionary says nationality is, and you're including only a part of it, so it's not fair that you should favour birth place or citizenship over descent. I'm not including the ethnicity, but the nationality. All of this kerfuffle about what people think of as Americans is so, so unnecessary, because the meaning of nationality lies in that good old book the dictionary. You people are the vandals, my friends, so I advise that you stop.
Cypriot stud

EastEnders Characters[edit]

Whether a character is still in the show or not, as long as they're alive there is no need to speak of them in the past tense, because in the fictional soap land they are still seen as alive. Instead just make clear that the character has left the show - the setting of Walford. If the character has died, then the past tense should be used. Please stop changing "is" to "was". Thank you. Sweetie Petie 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's about grammar. Let's imagine Alfie Moon. He has now left the show and people say that Shane Richie played the character of Alfie Moon, who was a character on the show EastEnders.
It's pure common sense to say 'was' if they are no longer on the show, as they were on the show in the past, thus why the past tense is used.
Leon.
Of course I do understand what you're saying, I'm just trying to keep everything in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders. Sweetie Petie 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the EastEnders Wikiproject talk page and discuss there.

Cypriot stud 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes to several articles[edit]

You've been adding "multi-ethnic" to the first paragraph of various biographies on the basis that the person's ancestors didn't all immigrate on the same boat. You've also been changing "American" to "American-born" which would not need specifying unless somebody left their home country to take up permanant residence in another. It appears you've already been warned about these things, so please stop.

Until you have fully read and/or contributed to an above post about this, I will not consider taking this seriously.
Thanks.
Cypriot stud

Advice

You may not realise it, but Wikipedia has its own house style defined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please be careful to follow its advice. All edits that don't will be changed to match what our MoS recommends. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 14:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? Me making peoples' nationalities correct or something else?
Cypriot stud

Jennifer Aniston is not multiracial[edit]

Please stop adding Jennifer Aniston to the List of multiracial people. I have responded to your concerns on that article's talk page. You are the only one who claims that she is multi-racial. I hope we can consider this matter closed for the time being. discospinster 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings[edit]

Your edits to Arnold Schwarzenegger[edit]

Arnold moved to the U.S. in 1968 and became a U.S. citizen in 1983. He's clearly an "Austrian-American" rather than an "Austrian" so I will revert your edit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:58, Jan. 2, 2006

He is a citizen of the United States, but he is Austrian. This doesn't make him Austrian-American.
Cypriot stud

Katie Melua[edit]

Some of your edits to the Katie Melua page are not standard to Wikipeadia. The name that a person is known as is usually in quotation marks not brackets, I cite Will Young and Buzz Aldrin as examples, also when a persons name is translated into a different alphabet it is usually done like this (Georgian: ქეთი მელუა), I cite Nino Burjanadze and Zurab Noghaideli. I must point out that this is not “Wikipeadian Law” but it does appear to be the norm. Thank you. Philip Stevens 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked at the manual of style, but it doesn't seem to state that the things you wrote are in the 'Wikipedia law'; it just seems to be an option for writing shortened names of people. As for the 'Georgian: ქეთი მელუა', it doesn't even mak sense to a native English speaker. It is ungrammatical to write it this way.
Cypriot stud
  • Sorry your right, the manual of style is not 'law'; I shouldn't have put it that way. I think the 'Georgian: ქეთი მელუა' does make sense, or at least it's clear what it means and it's done in this style across Wiki for most alphabets, look at Ariel Sharon. Philip Stevens 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. I most definitely believe that William "Will" Young is wrong, because if you were to read it out a loud, you would say Will, which is not correct. Using parantheses is a much better, grammatical way.
Finally, I suppose that 'Georgian: ქეთი მელუა' does make sense, but it's not as clear as it could be, and 'ქეთი მელუა in Georgian characters' actually grabs what is trying to be said.
Thanks anyway.
Cypriot stud

Warning

You are making edits to Wikipedia which are breaking the Manual of Style house style which users are supposed to follow. Please stop. These are the agreed rules which everyone abides by. Continuous changing of content in articles to break agreed MoS rules, when you have been asked to stop, is often seen as vandalism. Constant vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, maybe I'm missing something here, but in what way am I breaking the manual of style rules? I am no vandalist — I'm helping to revert vandalists' work due to their lack of research, care, and knowledge on certain subjects I am more informed on than them. You are comitting constant vandalism, and you deserve to be blocked, not me.
This subject needs discussing. Many people have started to get this sorted but then cut off half-way through with no reason given. Please go to the manual of style discussion page and answer to my post (under the post entitled 'Nationality').
Thank you.
Cypriot stud 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see [1] my response to your post. You are missing a clue. We are trying to give said clue to you. Does it not even sink in that you are being continuously reverted? Isn't that enough clue? --Randal L. Schwartz 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [2]. All further discussions on the topic should be discussed there.

Thank you.

Leon.

Ethnicities[edit]

Greetings. It appears that you have a disagreement with several users over how best to interpret Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I'm currently not taking a position on the matter. I'd just like to note a few things.

  1. I recognize that most of your edits have been unambiguously helpful, and you're generally helping to improve Wikipedia.
  2. You have a valid point about nationality. What you're doing isn't vandalism.
  3. On the other hand, those you disagree with have a point as well, and when they revert your changes, they aren't vandalizing either.
  4. Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by the dictionary. If the consensus is that an ethnic German born in America should be called a "German-American", then that's what we should do. If the consensus is that he should he called an "American", then that's what we should do. Even if you disagree, you'll be expected to go by consensus.
  5. It's good that we're having a debate on the subject. The goal of this debate is to acheive consensus.
  6. Until we determine what consensus is, it would be better if no one change articles to take one side or other on the matter. Please don't change articles from saying "American" to "multi-ethnic American" or anything else until we sort this out. But by all means, keep making all the other improvements you've been making.

All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Firstly, I am glad that a 'professional' intervention has occurred. I am sorry for seemingly losing it at times, but it was down to frustration and I hope for it never to happen again.
Secondly, moving on to the subject of this topic. The thing is, although I am not trying to imply that the whole idea of being run by consensus is wrong, I do deeply believe that, for this particular subject, it is unnecessary. The Wikipedia manual of style reads that the nationality of each article's subject is to be included. I edited what was already there to make the nationality fully correct, but it was continuously reverted in what, in my view, was partly done to annoy me or to suit the editors' personal preference. There is no need for a consensus for this, because I have made it clear umpteen times that I edited for the good of Wikipedia and to correct the meaning of nationality.
What I am saying is that why should there be a consensus on what nationality means, when the dictionary backs me up? I never said that Wikipedia is or should be run by the dictionary, but simply that the dictionary is in agreement with my edits, which abide by the Wikipedia rule that nationality must be included in articles.
Thirdly, I am a member of the Greek and Cypriot Community, and I have much more knowledge on the whole topic than what the editors do. I know that the nationality of a person born in England to Cypriot parents is both English and Cypriot. A common way to abbreviate this is to call this person an English-Cypriot (even though just Cypriot is equally acceptable, but this only partly agrees with the meaning of nationality, thus out of the question for Wikipedia, just as the other editors' versions). I also fall into this category, being born in England to an English mother and a Cypriot father.
The truth is that the others are choosing the birthplace meaning of nationality over descent. They have no right, and they continue to revert it to this when I make it fully correct. It's just like a person with the full name James Michael Stuart Smith being called just James Michael Smith or James Stuart Smith (thus favouring one middle name over the other). There is no need for a consensus here, as the only problem is that the others refuse to accept or acknowledge what nationality means, rather than us all having a genuine diagreement over what is best.
Seeing you as a superior on Wikipedia, can you please tell me your views on the topic?
Cypriot stud 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cypriot Stud.
Iv'e only just recently taken a notice to the issue reguarding Nationality/Ethnicity, and unfortunately have come a little late in the stages of the debate. I have seen the tribulations you have gone through, for the most part, alone on this issue, and am aware of the passion you seem to have reguarding this subject.
I completely support your position on this matter. So, your not alone on this anymore. Feel free to post on my page and update me on any new debates going on involving this issue. I'll definitely back you up.
--INO Exodus 12:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

No, it's not too late. I have been very busy recently so the debate has been avoided. I have managed to edit some some Wikipedia articles recently but nothing too 'major'.

The ethnicity row has been on my mind, actually, and I will reply to the thread again in the very near future (I may be able to squeeze it in tonight).

I'm very glad somebody actually understands where I'm coming from and backs me up. Exactly which of my umpteen offers do you support?

Cypriot stud

British/English[edit]

Could I ask you to stop chaning people to British. Current Wikipedia is to have seperate nationalities for people from the UK. I release from your proposal you disagree with this, but unless your proposal is passed can you stop chaning people. --Berks105 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but as I understand from other articles there isn't actually a consensus on whether 'British' or 'English should be used. Nonetheless, I will refrain for the time being. Cypriot stud

Hey stud![edit]

Sorry for reverting this edit of yours, but those were the exact words Karamanlis used (in English). Apogevmatini is making a summarized translation compatible for brief headline purposes. Karamanlis was shown on TV several times speaking these exact words in Strasburg. Also check talk:Macedonia naming dispute#I myself am a Macedonian. Thanks. NikoSilver 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's not a big deal anyway... NikoSilver 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Kâzım-Richards[edit]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Colin Kâzım-Richards. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. CAN 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Cypriot stud! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Eirini Psychrami - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2010 (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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hi-5 (Greek group)[edit]

Notice

The article Hi-5 (Greek group) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. YODADICAE👽 14:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cypriot_stud&oldid=1021582915"