User talk:Yannismarou

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

Userpage Alter Ego

Talk

Contributions

About me/Userboxes

Sandbox Archive

Thoughts about Wikipedia

Ten tips to make an article FA

Hi, and welcome to my talk page! Please remember to: Be civil sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Start new topics at the bottom, and give your message a ==descriptive heading== When mentioning a specific page or user, giving me a [[wikilink]] is helpful I will probably post responses in your talk page ... Or maybe below your comment right here! So "watch" my page just in case, because you never know with me! For the same reason, I will expect from you to answer to my messages wherever you like. And, with this system (?), continuity will be completely lost. But who cares?! If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. If you need editing help, head here. Click here to leave me a new message. Design and concept blatantly stolen from User:Kimon, User:Luna Santin and User:NikoSilver.

Byzantine navy FAC

Hello Yannis! After an unsuccessful attempt to get the Byzantine navy article to FA, I have greatly expanded and improved it. Since you are one of the best FA-creators I know, I'd be glad to have your input in the second nomination. Thanks in advance and best regards, Constantine ✍ 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yannis, the article has been successfully promoted. Thanks again for your support. Constantine ✍ 11:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty glad too, given the effort invested, and either way, one's first FA is always reason for celebration! I was actually pleasantly surprised this time around, since sufficient editors with knowledge of the matter were interested, and helped in greatly improving the article through the FAC process. Anyway, I was talking with User:Gun Powder Ma and we'll probably try to bring the Greek fire and Dromon articles to GA status (and possibly gather them together with the navy article in a featured topic). Other than that, the Cretan War (1645–1669) article is IMO pretty much ready for FA. However it lacks coverage on some aspects, especially info on events in Crete itself, and some more info on the impact of the war in financial, demographic and military terms would be needed to round it off. I have found some additional sources, and am going through them. If you can help here, that 'd be great! I have also a bunch of other articles on the Ottoman–Venetian Wars ongoing, which, given that they were mostly fought in Greece, could be of interest. I am also engaged in translating the Greece in the Balkan Wars article from French, although I do not intend to strictly adhere to its structure or content. Here too, an experienced contributor would be of great help, especially in keeping it balanced and NPOV. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Σταμάτα Ρεβίθη

I'd be delighted to help. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yannis, I gave this a pass, a few trivial edits; its quite well written, I found myself with nothing to do. I think its ok to go. I'll watch the FAC page in case prose come up, but I don't think they will. God speed! Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Its not a ref formatting I'm familiar with, just took me while to cop what you were up to. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Qurestion, seeing as how you are so handy for digging up sources; Henryk Górecki I have been trying to build for over two years, but I just cant find the info. I've more or less exhaused all online info I know of, and have some of the english language material out there though only what to be fair is available through general book stores (Cork is a great place but very small, and I refuse to visit Dublin for any reason!). Ceoil (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you want me to search for? I suppose you don't expect me to go to Dublin for you and search in the bookstores there. Unless of course, you are ready to pay (cash!) for that.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, I mean tips on resources I might find sources. I use questia mainly. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questia is fine. Google Book? Google Scholar? But they help more on historical subjects. Google news has also been very helpful to me in the past. Now, Gutenberg and Perseus is mainly old stuff; I don't think they are much of a help for you. If you want me to have a look at anything particular, tell me. It's a pleasure ... --Yannismarou (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I might as well be shameless and come to the point. In about a week, I'm going to take Fragment of a Crucifixion to PR, and I would very much appreciate if you looked at how its put together. Its going to be short, I have near every book published on Bacon, and the painting is not often mentioned, however it strikes a big chord with me. The article is all over the place at the moment, and it will be mainly help with making it structurally cohierent that I'll be asking for. Your usually quite good at that! Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You always say the same thing, but almost always the article's structure is excellent, and I have nothing to say! And, at the end, I feel like an idiot! Obviously, you want to do it again. Let's see, then ...--Yannismarou (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ela file

thelo ligo βοiθεια ado:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brazilian_passport

ευχαριστώ πολύ file mou.

Reaper7 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars

Certainly! I thought I had checked all of them, but clearly I had missed that one. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for peer review on Onassis

Whpq (talk) has given you a slice of cheesecake, for for following up on a peer review request! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a slice of cheesecake! Enjoy! Thanks for spending your time providing a peer review of Aristotle Onassis!

Spread the goodness of slice of cheesecake by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=red|bg=cream|image=Carnegie Deli Strawberry Cheesecake.jpg|article=a|item=slice of cheesecake }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hmmm .... And I am so hungry!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Epaminondas

Hi there, I've now added the references to the bibliography section. I'll continue trying to add references and re-write where I can!MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the references you asked about, in the article. Cheers!MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm away until Monday now, so there won't be any more input from me for a few days. Hopefully we've done enough to keep the article featured though. I'll continue to add detail, reference etc. when I get back, but I think I might have got as far as possible with only the ancient sources. For the 'Assessments', I think more modern sources will be useful. Thanks for all your input, Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Yanni--funny timing; I hadn't logged on here in months, and happened by a few days after you posted this note. It looks like you're doing a great job making some improvements to good old Epaminondas. I wish I were able to offer real help like I used to, but alas, I'm in Boston, my books are in St. Louis, I no longer have access to the university library that used to fuel my writing, and all of my free time is spent at the office (I'm there now, in fact, though obviously goofing off a little). That said, this article was one of my proudest accomplishments on Wikipedia, and I'd like to see it stay in good standing, so I'll do what I can. It does look like the Boston Public Library has a copy of The Soul of Battle to hand, so I'll try to at least add page numbers and citations from that in the next week, and I'll be happy to do what I can with the prose as well (if you can't cite, write...). I hope you're well too--it's been a long time, but I have fond memories of teaming up to make the internet a little richer in snazzy biographies of interesting Greeks. I'm going to provide you with a contact email that you can reach me at, since catching me at my talk page was a piece of random luck. --Robth^Talk 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also mailed you! Looking forward to receiving the contact mail of yours! These were really the good old days, and you knew and know that you were one of my inspirations for working on this project. Which, by the way, is poorer without you!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi - thanks for offering the review, but I currently have neither the time nor the inclination to do any major work on wikipedia. Sorry about that. Because I posted the request so long ago, I'm sure that whatever work I wanted reviewed has been heavily revised in the meantime anyway, so it wouldn't be much use to me now. You could always post comments on the talk page of the article in question. Cheers - Lexo (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll archive it.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits by user [1]

Dear administrator! The above mentioned user keeps on editing the Greek names of Turkish cities in articles such as Roza Eskenazi, Aristotle Onassis etc. To my relief, he is not vandalizing the pages. However, I'm wondering if such a practice is in conformity with WP naming conventions. Take a look and maybe raise the issue on WP Greece's talkpage. Thanks! Pel thal (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruthless sysop watching him over --Yannismarou (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Α ρε Γιάννη...

If you really want to keep revert-warring me, can I make a suggestion, couldn't we take the duel off to some other article, say, Graecoanatolica macedonica? Several advantages: it's the most pertinent title possible, the subject is already dead and won't mind, and it offers an obvious hook for whoever makes the unavoidable step of immortalising us at WP:LAME. Whaddya say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no "duel". There is only one edit warrior (you) versus the status quo ante.--Avg (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Warum nicht, Fut? Aber ziehe ich etwas anderes vor. Meine Antwort wird poetisch und heroisch sein:

Line	Original	Translation
[32]	Ευθύς εκαβαλίκευσαν, 'ς τόν κάμπον κατεβαίνουν.	They mounted at once and they came to the battlefield.
[33]	Ώς δράκοντες εσύριζαν και ως λέοντες εβρύχουντα	They hissed like serpents, they roared like lions,
[34]	και ώς αετοί επέτουντα και εσμίξαν οι δύο.	They soared like eagles, and the two clashed.
[35]	Και τότε να ειδής πόλεμον καλών παλληκαρίων	And then you could see a fight between fine brave youths.
[36]	και από της μάχης της πολλής κρούσιν διασυντόμως	In the heat of the battle they struck continuously,
[37]	και από τον κρύπον τον πολύν και από το δός και λάβε	and from the great clashing and the cut and thrust
[38]	οι κάμποι φόβον είχασιν και τα βουνά αηδονούσαν,	trees were uprooted and the sun was darkened,
[39]	το αίμαν εκατέρεεν εις τα σκαλόλουρά των	Blood flowed down over their horse-trappings
[40]	και ο ίδρος τους εξέβαινε απάνω απ'τα λουρίκια.	and their sweat ran out over their breastplates.
[41]	Ήτον γάρ του Κωνσταντή γοργότερος ο μαύρος,	Constantine’s black horse was speedier,
[42]	και θαυμαστός νεώτερος ήτον ο καβαλάρης.	and its rider was a marvellous young man.
[43]	κατέβηκε εις τον αμιράν και κρούει του ραβδέα	He charged at the emir and struck him a blow with his stick,
[44]	και εχέρισεν ο αμιράς να τρέμη και να φεύγη.	and then the emir began to tremble and flee.
[45]	Σαρακηνός ελάλησεν τον αμιράν της γλώσσης:	A Saracen addressed the emir in his own tongue:
[46]	"Πιάσε, μούλε, τον άγουρον, ταχέως να τον νικήσης,	"Seize the youngster, my lord, and grab a quick victory,
[47]	μή εις σύντομόν του γύρισμα πάρτη κεφαλήν σου.	so that he doesn’t take your head off with his sudden turn.
[48]	Αυτός καλά σ'εσέβηκεν τώρα να σε γκρεμνήση.	He has made a fine attack on you and now he might finish you off.
[49]	Εγώ ουδέ τον εγνοιάζομαι να τον καταπονέσης,	I don’t think, my lord, you are going to do him much harm,
[50]	αλλά μή το καυχάσεται ότι έτρεψε φουσάτα."	but don’t let him boast that he routed an army."
[51]	Και ο αμιράς ως το ήκουσεν, μακρέα τον αποξέβην,	When the emir heard this, he withdrew some way from the youth,
[52]	έριψεν το κοντάριν του και δάκτυλόν του δείχνει	he threw away his spear and showed him his finger,
[53]	και μετά του δακτύλου του τοιούτον λόγον λέγει:	and with this gesture said these words:
[54]	"Να ζής, καλέ νεώτερε, εδικόν σου είναι το νίκος."	"May you live and rejoice, young man, for victory is yours."

.

--Yannismarou (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, now. And believe me, I mean every word I write here. I highly respect you, and I always regarded you (and I'll still regard you) as one of the most competent sysops this project has. As a matter of fact, I think that you're born to be a sysop! Your genes knew it before you! But, with all due respect, I feel that in the Macedonian-related articles your stance is not even, and diachronically you are not at all consistent in what you're saying and doing. The fact that you even went against a consensual popular vote in the RoM article for the bolding is outrageous! I could expect it from Taivo but not from you. About the bolding?!!! Your stance there is not more justified than Tassos' stance in Graecoanatolica macedonica, where indeed I cannot find anything in MOSMAC in support of the fYROM naming.

If the fact that all (or at least most of) the Greek users are critical towards your stance does not say anything to you, then I am sorry. I will not say anything else. And don't tell me that users like Tassos are nationalists, because I'll tear my clothes (and this is not a nice spectacle, believe me, I am fatter than I used to be). Concerning the duel, it is you who declared the war, arguing that there is no other solution but to ban the one side. If you think so, go for it! As far as I am concerned, I'll never stop to respect you and thank you for your moral support during my RfA, but I'll stand up for what I believe, even if that means that I'll have to be ousted from this project. If ever comes, this is going to be a sad moment for me, but, thank God, I have a full life, and many other things to do outside Wikipedia.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yannis. Sorry about that but since the Graecoanatolica macedonica article was mentioned, I need to clarify that, unfortunately, I took what I thought was a humorous WP:BAIT where I also took the opportunity to introduce, in jest, in my edit summary, the non-existent Greek cabal, a figment of some users' imagination. Making this edit I did not fully consult the WP:NC manual but I thought I was making a proper edit. And for sure this edit was not a nationalist statement either. It was rather a light hearted response to Future's humorous challenge on your talkpage. That Future turned off his humorous genes during his reversal of my edit so that he could issue a rather caustic edit summary is surprising. I know Future has a great sense humour but unfortunately he chose to suppress it in this instance in favour of a baseball bat. I am disappointed, but this is not the first time. As far as my nationalist agenda in Wikipedia you can check my record of participation in these discussions, which aside from the latest flare-up is very sparse. When I, rarely, contributed in the past it was mostly to try to calm things down as in here: [2]. The latest round however caught me off guard in large measure due to the amount of bad faith and other nasty incidents directed at the Greek side which I found unwarranted and anti-intellectual in their scope, due to the persistent mantra that all Greek editors are just motivated by blind nationalism and that their arguments are patently tainted as a result. This is an anti-intellectual approach based not on rebutting the arguments but assuming bad faith from all the Greek editors, which is simply ridiculous. Greek walled gardens and Greek cabals are suggested with a straight face, while others talk about Greek nationalist gangs. This current demonisation of the Greek element is why I chose to get involved. If this drivel directed at the Greeks is true and the solution to this naming dispute was so easy, why then all these years so many debates took place including the ill-fated WP:MOSMAC essay? All such precedents were suddenly disregarded and hidden under the carpet just so as to throw the mud at the Greeks. That's hardly fair to all these hard working intellectuals from both sides who took pains to debate these issues for so many years. It is also anti-intellectual, simplistic and confrontational. Anyway, sorry for taking so much space on your talkpage. At least talking to a friend makes this sad affair somewhat less of a burden. Take care. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Leaving for a moment aside this sad story, I am happy for your thread here, because you reminded of doing something I wanted for a long time: to thank you for having a look from times to times to the Byzantine empire article, whose maintenance is a titanic mission, and need collective work.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast reply. I don't think I deserve these thanks because I don't think I did all that much on the article, but thank you for your kind comments. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

I have people watching the page 24 hours a day. But keep it quiet ... Καληνύχτα Τάσο. Την κάνω σε λίγο!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I get it. I've got a few of my own. My people may meet your people one day. Καληνύχτα Γιάννη :) Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 00:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Akritika? As far as I am concerned, reverting duels with Greek people usually remind me of less heroic feats. Like the anecdote about the villager who took her neighbour to court over the use of the village cistern for irrigating their gardens. They had been revert-warring over opening and shutting one of their water channels: Pai aftos, Kyr' nirudhika m', kai tu vaz' sapan'. Lipon, pau ighú, tu vaz' kat'. Aftos tu vaz' pan'! ighú tu vaz' kat'. Aftos, tu vaz' pan'!... -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then don't initiate them, especially in articles where you see a long-time consensus (with no participation from Greek nationalists) like Council of Europe. Your practice reminds me the practice of a Greek villager who checks if the owner of the neighboring real estate is there, and if he finds him missing, he goes and installs himself there. When the owner returns and demands his property, he starts screaming: "Φύγε από δω, ρε! It is mine! I decided it!"--Yannismarou (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Αγαπητέ μου, δεν σου έχει πει κανείς ότι οι έννοιες «Γερμανός» και «χιούμορ» είναι ασυμβίβαστες; ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Όχι ακριβώς Κέκρωπα. Απλώς έχουν ένα παραπάνω διακόπτη με τον οποίο μπορούν να αναβοσβήνουν το χιούμορ. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Note

Glad to see you back at FAC !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Girl, it took you some days to see me, but thanks! Well, let's be honest ... I am back because I missed you ... ... ...

Keep up the good work both in FAC and FARC, Sandy! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars

This will probably annoy you hugely, but here goes. After a lengthy absence from the article, and from Wikipedia in general, which was largely provoked by the interminable storm in a teacup over the introduction to this article last summer, I have returned and edited it again. See what you think.

Please, don't throw anything at me. Zburh (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem

I always assume good faith, I screamed only in order to make others assume good faith, and not create sections named "The lead again and the "misuse"(-"manipulation") of sources". :-) See you, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut, only about the academic terminology:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Found your Message

Γιαννη μου, δεν τα χουμε πει εδώ και καιρό αλλά είναι πάντα χαρά μου. Ελπίζω να τον πιούμε τον καφέ που λέγαμε, αλλά ακόμα κι αν δεν προλάβουμε αυτόν τον καιρό, επιφυλάσσομαι για το μέλλον. Είδα τα σχετικά που μου ζήτησες και πολύ πρόχειρα σου γράφω μερικές παρατηρήσεις (βαριέμαι αφόρητα να γράψω στα αγγλικά και οι ενδιαφερόμενοι είναι δόξα σοι ο Θεός όλοι τους ελληνομαθείς). Κατ' αρχάς, όπως είχα επισημάνει παλιότερα στον FP το βασικότερο έργο σε σχέση με τους Σουλιώτες είναι το Βάσω Ψιμούλη, Σούλι και Σουλιώτες, Αθήνα 2005², όπου και ΟΛΗ η σχετική βιβλιογραφία (ελληνική και ξένη). Πρόκειται για μια βαρβάτη, εμβριθέστατη, επιστημονικότατη και πλήρως απαλλαγμένη από εθνικιστικές αγκυλώσεις διδακτορική διατριβή 560 και πλέον σελίδων (κόσμημα ακαδημαϊκής ιστορικής γραφής και έρευνας... μακάρι να γράφαν έτσι και στα υπόλοιπα βαλκάνια) που ξεκινάει από την πρώτη εγκατάσταση των αλβανικών φύλων κατά τον 13ο-14ο αιώνα και φτάνει μέχρι την ελληνική επανάσταση. Σύμφωνα με την Ψιμούλη: Οι Σουλιώτες ήταν ένας ορεινός ελληνορθόδοξος πληθυσμός, αλβανικής καταγωγής εν πολλοίς δίγλωσσος, που προκειμένου να επιβιώσει αναγκαζόταν να εκμεταλλεύεται ανελέητα τους αγροτικούς πεδινούς πληθυσμούς (ελληνικούς και αλβανικούς). Το αλβανικής καταγωγής μπορείς πολύ απλά να το διαβάσεις και ως Αλβανοί σκέτο. Η έννοια της εθνικής ταυτότητας δεν υπήρχε αλλά οι ίδιοι είχαν πλήρη συνείδηση της καταγωγής και της διαφορετικότητάς τους τόσο από τους έλληνες ομόδοξούς τους όσο και από τους εξισλαμισμένους Αλβανούς (τουθόπερ τους πραγματικούς Τσάμηδες) που τους περιέβαλλαν. Η ουσιαστική ενσωμάτωσή τους στο νέο "ελληνικό έθνος" γίνεται πράγματι κατά τη διάρκεια της επανάστασης όταν διωγμένοι για δεύτερη και οριστική φορά από το Σούλι ταυτίζονται με τον ελληνικό αγώνα για ανεξαρτησία με την ελπίδα της αποκατάστασής τους στο υπό ίδρυση ελληνικό κράτος. Η πορεία προς την ενσωμάτωσή τους γνώρισε πολλά σκαμπανεβάσματα και ολοκληρώθηκε σταδιακά. Ο φίλος μας ο Balkanian αν και του δίνω τα χίλια δίκια για τις μαλακίες που κατά καιρό έχει ακούσει κι ο ίδιος και οι καθόλα συμπαθείς και συχνά αδικημένοι συμπατριώτες του από τους δικούς μας υπερπατριώτες πέφτει δυστυχώς (με το κεφάλι και εθελουσίως μάλιστα) στην ίδια παγίδα με τους κατά καιρούς ελληναράδες προσπαθώντας να προωθήσει τον τσάμικο αλυτρωτισμό (γιατί περί αυτού δυστυχώς πρόκειται). Εν ολίγοις έχει διαμορφωθεί και πάλι το γνωστό καταθλιπτικό τοπίο της Wikipedia όπου τα κοινά στοιχεία μεταξύ των λαών αντί να ενώνουν διχάζουν. Αλλά έστω... Σε σχέση με τη γλώσσα τώρα (αντιγράφω κατά λέξη από την Ψιμούλη σελ. 214-215):"Σύμφωνα με τον εκδότη και σχολιαστή του κειμένου (ενν. το ελλληνοαλβανικό λεξικό του Μπότσαρη), Τίτο Π. Γιοχάλα το αλβανικό ιδίωμα του λεξικού ανήκει στην τοσκική διάλεκτο της Ν. Αλβανίας, με επιβιώσεις όμως πολλών αρχαϊκών γλωσσικών στοιχείων, τα περισσότερα από τα οποία απαντώνται σήμερα στην ομιλούμενη αλβανική των ελληνο-αλβανικών κοινοτήτων της Κάτω Ιταλίας. Από τα σημερινά ομιλούμενα αρβανίτικα ιδιώματα, ο Γιοχάλας θεωρεί ότι η ελάχιστα ομιλούμενη σήμερα διάλεκτος του χωριού Καναλάκι και ιδιαίτερα του χωριού Ανθούσα (Ράπεζα) βρίσκεται εγγύτερα, γλωσσικώς προς το υλικό του Μάρκου Μπότσαρη." Αυτά λέει ο Γιοχάλας και μόνον αυτά. Σε σχέση τώρα με την πρώτη τους εμφάνιση στον χώρο της Ηπείρου, είδα να γίνεται αναφορά στον Arnakis και να του αποδίδεται η άποψη ότι "ήδη πριν από τον 12ο αιώνα τα αλβανικά φύλα βρίσκονταν στην βόρειοδυτική Ελλάδα". Δυστυχώς εδώ αποκαλύπτονται οι κίνδυνοι της ψευτοέρευνας στο διαδίκτυο. Το παράθεμα δεν προέρχεται από άρθρο του Arnakis ούτε απηχεί την άποψή του. Πρόκειται για βιβλιοκρισία που ο Arnakis έγραψε στο περιοδικό Speculum για το πασίγνωστο έργο του Βακαλόπουλου Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού Α. Οι Αρχές και η διαμόρφωσή του

Στο απόσπασμα που παραθέτει ο συμπαθής Balkanian ο Αρνάκης απλώς αναπαράγει την άποψη του Βακαλόπουλου και η υποψία μου είναι ότι έχει γίνει τυπογραφικό γιατί ο Βακαλόπουλος ήταν πάντα υπέρ της άποψης ότι τα πρώτα αλβανικά φύλα στον χώρο της Ηπείρου εμφανίζονται μετά τα μέσα του 13ου αιώνα. Απ' ό,τι είδα ο Balkanian υποστηρίζει στη σελίδα των Τσάμηδων ότι θα παρουσιάσει ολόκληρη τη σελίδα του άρθρου που υποτίθεται ότι έχει διαβάσει και αυτό θα έχει οπωσδήποτε ενδιαφέρον. Αν μου το ζητήσεις σου στέλνω τη βιβλιοκρισία να δεις και μόνος σου τι εστί misquotation... αλλά έστω.

Γιάννη μου να με συμπαθάς αλλά είναι τόσα ακόμα που ειλικρινά δεν αξίζει τον κόπο να ασχοληθείς. Ελπίζω από τα παραπάνω να πήρες μια ιδέα για την άθλια κατάσταση που επικρατεί γενικότερα και ειδικότερα και τη λογική που διέπει τους συντάκτες όλων των εθνικοτήτων. Η WIKIPEDIA είναι χώρος ιδεολογικής αντιπαράθεσης και όχι εγκυκλοπαίδεια. Μετά τα πρόσφατα επεισόδια τα οποία παρακολούθησα από ενδιαφέρον για τους συμμετέχοντες και όχι για τη Μακεδονιάδα καθεαυτήν συνειδητοποίησα πλήρως ότι δεν με κολακεύει καθόλου να συμμετέχω στο εγχείρημα. Δεν είμαι ούτε ελληναράς υπερπατριώτης ούτε ψευτοαριστερός του μετανεωτερικού "δυτικού κόσμου" που στο πίσω μέρος του κεφαλιού του ζει ακόμα στην αποικιοκρατική του ψευδαίσθηση. Όσο κι αν θέλουν να παρουσιάσουν τους Έλληνες (η ακόμα καλύτερα τους Βαλκάνιους - γιατί σ' αυτή τη γαμημένη χερσόνησο είμαστε ΟΛΟΙ αδέλφια) ως ανήκοντες στην φυλή των Μάο Μάο το μόνο που γίνεται ξεκάθαρο είναι ότι οι ιδεολογικές προκαταλήψεις και οι ψευδαισθήσεις μεγαλείου απ' όλες τις κατευθύνσεις καλά κρατούν. Το αποτέλεσμα ξέφυγε από τη όρια της γραφικότητας και μπήκε για τα καλά στη σφαίρα της γελοιότητας με άφθονη δόση χυδαιότητας. Τα παραπάνω τα έγραψα μόνο και μόνο επειδή σε εκτιμώ και τίποτε παραπάνω. Το μόνο που ελπίζω είναι να μη χαθω με μερικούς από τους αξιόλογους ανθρώπους που γνώρισα εδώ μέσα και τίποτε παραπάνω. Λυπάμαι για το μακροσκελές του πράγματος αλλά σήμερα είχα ρεπό και μπόρεσα να σου γράψω αρκετά, τώρα πάω για καφεδιές. Η μέρα έξω είναι γαμάτη! Καλή σου συνέχεια--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

hi

Please, help me with something. How would it be in Katharevousa, "Arvanites" and "Arvanitia"?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Αρβανίτης is different in katharevousa; therefore it is probably Αρβανίτης (sing) - Αρβανίται (plural). Αρβανιτιά is a demotic word; I cannot think of a respective term in katharevousa (I would just say οι Αρβανίται). The problem is I don't have my dictionaries here for further analysis and info.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

LOL Μπαλώματα κατόπιν εορτής [3].

Γι' αυτό πρέπει να μείνεις! Γιατί στα θέματα αυτά η Wikipedia βρίθει ημιμαθών (μεταξύ και αυτών και εγώ, αλλά τουλάχιστον εγώ ομολογώ ό,τι δεν ξέρω, σε αντίθεση με άλλους [ονόματα δε λέμε υπολήψεις δε θίγουμε] που το παίζουν ειδήμονες και δεν μπορούν ούτε να παραθέσουν μια πηγή ούτε να γράψουν ένα άρθρο της προκοπής), ενώ εσύ πραγματικά με τις παρεμβάσεις σου (σποραδικές αλλά τόσο εύστοχες και εμπεριστατωμένες) της δίνεις λίγο φως. Φιλιά και καλή ξεκούραση! Εδώ στις Βρυξέλλες προχτές λιακάδα, χτες έτσι και έτσι, σήμερα ΣΚΑΤΑ!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

remark

Actually, it was nice working with you, but if you do not want to intervine thats ok. Let me put it in other words:

Souliotes are gererally remarked as a community of 18th century, but they are a community created in 15th century.

Having an Albanian origin, means that they would have an original language. THe current version is "Souliotes originally spoke their own" dialect, and than became "became bilingual in Albanian and Greek", without putting the time factor. How could they be of Albanian origin, and since their origin be bilingual? Shouldnt they have a original language. THe time when they became bilingual is unknown and really not intresting (my hometown is bilingual, all of us speak Greek, but Albanian is still our mother tangue).

As per their subgroup of Albanians, they would be either Souliote or Chams. They could not be Arvanites for example, a term confused in Greece too. (Arvanites are the Arbereshe or the Albanophones in general? If they are the first, than they are a dialectologicla, regional group of SOuthern Greece, if they are the second, they are just a sociological group). There are sources that explain that SOuliotes were part of Cham group (once more, Cham subdialect, costumes, music, dances, folk tradition, region), and not a distinct group.

Whatsoever, thanks!Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The plaasure has been mine as well. Thank you for your feedback and analysis as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Help

Unfortunately, the only serious source (my modern Greek history is even more neglected than my other eras...) on the Souliotes I have here is the book Giorgos recommended above (2nd ed.). I could help you by mentioning its general conclusion (Giorgos has become too much of a snob :P though he's absolutely correct about the, no, our general behavior here on wiki) but you should give it a read! 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)