User talk:Deucalionite

Paradigm shift. This time, everything is going as planned. Just a few more cogs to turn... Deucalionite (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greek language

Hey, I noticed whenever you edit an article you change Ancient Greek to Ancient Greek language. However the latter is merely a redirect, with the actual article occurring at the former. Ford MF (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, I am aware there is an apparent inconsistency with things like Spanish language, but the community has before shot down proposals to move the article to Ancient Greek language. See Talk:Ancient Greek#Requested move. Cheers. Ford MF (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Arvanites GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Arvanites and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reviewed Maniots and it is also on hold. Any assistance in addressing the issues on the article's talk page would be appreciated. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the etymology of Protesilaos

Hello,

I am sorta new to Wikipedia and I am trying to figure out who first wrote that Protesilaos may come from Prote + suleusis. I find this etymology very interesting but I'd like to see the arguments. Are you the user who made this suggestion, if not can you tell who did so that I can contact him/her?

Thanks,

- Awsiants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awsiants (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speak to User:Ifnkovhg. Deucalionite (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Next update

You are supposed to add credits as well. And did you remove the entry from the suggestions page? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll get right on it. Deucalionite (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the credit format. Btw, do you wish to use the church image for the next update? The image looks rather bland to me. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your help. Personally, I find the image to be absolutely wonderful and believe it would look great in the next DYK update on Wikipedia's main page. Deucalionite (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine... --BorgQueen (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell me

Your objections. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

With gusto.

1) There are multiple ancient historical sources (aside from Herodotus) that attest to the Briges having Thracian origins. This is why I added a reference citation from Strabo's Geography in order to prove this rudimentary point.

2) You requested that I add a more modern source in order to validate the argument that the Briges were of Thracian stock. In response to your request, I added the reference citation from Jonathan Roth's work entitled The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (a valid source that coincides with all aspects of WP:RS).

3) I insist on keeping the William Smith reference citation since it is a quite reliable source despite it being from the 19th century. Wikipedia has used this particular source heavily in many of its articles.

4) The archaeological evidence, though valid, is too meager to establish a definitive historical stance on the Bryges being members of the Lusatian culture. Moreover, Borza sounds as if he is making a speculative interpretation rather than a direct assessment of the physical data. As for Hammond, you have not provided a reference citation from any of his works where he states that the Bryges were "Lausitz".

In the absence of any archaeological reports, it would be best to emphasize the fact that there is "extremely limited" physical evidence supporting the Bryges having a Lusatian cultural orientation. Deucalionite (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Limited is well-taken since if I'm not mistaken the identification of the pottery with the Phrygians is not unanimous (but let's not use "extremely limited", it's too much). Can you take my word re Hammond for now, until I can find a source explicitly stating he made the connection? As for their being "Thracian", we have a source commenting on the uncertainty despite similarities. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are my recommendations:

1) The phrase "extremely limited" has to remain in the article, because it reflects the statement made by Borza in the reference citation (i.e. "extremely slight archaeological record"). Consistency between sources and article content must be maintained in the article.

2) As for Hammond, I guess it wouldn't hurt to mention him in the article until you find a source attributed to him. However, please make sure to find his source quickly.

3) As for "linguistic uncertainties", keep in mind that the linguistic affinities between the Thracians and Phrygians are "decently attested". The only problem is their specific linguistic classification (since linguists don't know whether to regard Phrygian as a sub-Thracian dialect or a separate language that broke off from the same "Indo-European" linguistic group housing both Phrygians and Thracians in the remote past).

Allow me to restore the article to its former state. Of course, I will personally add some minor tweaks in order to accommodate your needs. Deucalionite (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"extremely limited" is ok but I would like the rest to stay as it is. Remember that it is supported by your own, a linguistics no less, source. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of my sources are historical (Strabo, Roth, Smith) not linguistic (Woodard).

I will restore the article to its former state. If you want me to remove the Woodard reference citation, then that is fine with me. However, if sources discussing "archaeological uncertainties" are included in the article, then wouldn't it be fair to do the same for sources that discuss "linguistic uncertainties"? Deucalionite (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, the source mentions exactly those "linguistic uncertainties". Please, I have no time for this. Tell me what your exact problem is. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Woodard establishes a basic linguistic rubric between Thracians and Phrygians that correlates with the historical connections made by Herodotus and Strabo. Therefore, this specific source should be kept despite mentioning problems with linguistic classification and not with linguistic affinity.

I'll fix the article so that we'll work out the kinks together. Alright? Deucalionite (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this sort of nitpicking is getting silly. Just go ahead and do whatever you want. The article is all yours. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have agitated you. However, nitpicking (at times) does have its benefits in making articles more accurate and reliable. Later. Deucalionite (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget the Hammond source! Deucalionite (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "your" article so feel free to remove it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad day? Deucalionite (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Church of St. Mary of Blachernae (Istanbul)

Hallo, thanks for your help and for your compliments (altough "masterpiece" seems to me a little exagerated: but maybe was just ironically meant ;-))! All the notes come from Janin, except 14 (the note about the resurfacing of Blachernitissa after 1453) which quotes the article about the Icon. By the way, with my questions I forced the article's author, Ghirla, to rewrite it... ;-) Anyway, thanks again! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Of course, I wasn't exaggerating when I said that your article is a "masterpiece". I really like it (especially the history section) and I truly believe that this article will achieve either GA or FA status someday. Take it easy friend. Deucalionite (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually you are right: this Church has never been archeologically investigated, so it has been very difficult for me to cover the architectural side. Let's hope that in the future someone will excavate this site! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Iole

Thanks for nominating Iole for GA. I have received a review and edited and improved the article according to the suggestions. Take a look at the article now and see if you have further ideas. Can it be renominated? Thanks! --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some minor revisions to the article and also renominated it. I believe the article will achieve GA status this time. Deucalionite (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This GA status is new to me, however I have over 50 DYKs. I'll see if in the future I can turn some of these DYKs into GAs. Thanks for all your help and the nominations. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is second review for GA on hold for 7 days. I tried to address the issues and copyedited accordingly. If you have time, look over the article now to see if you can add anything additional that could be added for improvements. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

thx

for help with dyk Victuallers (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Deucalionite (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece August 2008 newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minyan ware, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wafulz (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png

Thank you for reporting this long-standing typo. I will correct it as soon as I have time and upload the new version. Regards, -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

Thanks for contributing in Cham Albanians page, but there are 2 parts which do not seem NPOV to me. The first one is in the lead. We cannot leave only the sentence that some of them collaborated with the NAZI, without the sentence that several hundreds were part on ELAS. Secondly, in my opinion the history section should be cronological. There is a sentence in the secon paragraph that they were expelled and then in the fourth paragraph it is repeated that they were expelled. You know it seems a bit badwritten. Thanks again, I hope we continue this cooperation.balkanian (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I appreciate your honesty and find your grievances to be of sound judgment. I am sure I can fix the lead so that it is more NPOV. Don't worry too much about establishing a chronology though. Our first priority should be towards organizing our facts and verifying them with sources coupled with well-written in-line citations (quotes included).

The way I see it, in order to prevent a potential edit war between users arguing about "who killed who", facts have to be gathered.

I look forward to collaborating with you towards further enhancing the quality of the article. Deucalionite (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please contribute in the article I just created: Greek minority in Albania. Thanks.balkanian (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article. As for substantive edits, I am going to need some time to research. Deucalionite (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have made some edits in Cham albanians, please take a look.balkanian (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent

		The Double Project Barnstar
		I, the balkanian, declare you the king of diplomacy and award to you the Double Project Barnstar for your contributive contribute in pages of inter-Wiki/Projects importance.

Thanks! Deucalionite (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyharisto para poly.balkanian (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Deucalionite (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

Can you see my sugestion and some edits I have made in the article?balkanian (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was rude in the talk page, I didn`t mean to. But, I still think that it is a POV source, thus unreliable. Please, see my sugestions and the removed material.balkanian (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Besides, I doubt you were being rude. If anything, you were being honest since neither of us would want to jeopardize all of the hard work we put into the article.

Just so that we're even, I apologize for incorporating Tritou's work into the article without triple-checking his credentials. Deucalionite (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem my friend, we will make this article a totally NPOV, and full(&good)referenced one.balkanian (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

Hi, please see this book, I think it is a great one for the arrival of Albanians in Epirus, what do you think?balkanian (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the book is somewhat thorough in describing Albanian migrations into Epirus. However, I find the author to be far too reliant on literary data to substantiate his statements. If the Albanians established a physical presence in Epirus (which I am sure they did), then there should be both archaeological and literary data to substantiate this.

I am not saying that Albanians did not enter Epirus. However, I believe that the medieval literature attesting to Albanian migrations may be somewhat exaggerated. I acknowledge the fact that the Byzantine civil war of the 1340s and the Black Death contributed to the economic and demographic decline of the Greek population in Greece. However, the 14th century was generally the starting period for Greek migrations to the West and into the highlands of Greece. This phenomenon, attested by Vacalopoulos (read his quote in the references section), extended into the 15th century. This would explain why parts of Greece (especially the urban centers) were experiencing economic and demographic problems. The Byzantine civil war and the Black Death (that mostly affected crowded city populations) were the catalysts that led the Greeks to abandon their territories in order to avoid these problems. That many Greeks resettled elsewhere (both in and out of Greece) and that they later on resettled the plains of Greece they once abandoned should be a testament to this fact.

Don't get me wrong. The source you provided is good and I thank you for providing it. However, it is not good enough since it lacks an interdisciplinary (or at least a multidisciplinary) approach towards describing a chaotic period in Balkans history. Deucalionite (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine then, I will try to find something else. But, I am sure that this is the period that Albanians came in Epirus. You know we are speaking about certain personalities which did existed back then, like Gjin Bue Shpata, Peter Liosha, Zenebishti, etc, but lets find other sources, in order to havce a more acquirate figure about the medevial balkans. I think Hammond has written about this, but I do not have his book, do you have it?balkanian (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also added the etymology of Cham ALbanians and CHameria, in the page, please see the exact wording and give me your opinion.balkanian (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that our solution in this mess would be, Encyclopedia Britannica. Do you know anybody who has fully access?balkanian (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have Hammond's work my friend. Moreover, I don't know who has complete access to Encyclopedia Britannica. The only user I recall having a lot of sources handy is User:Macrakis. By the way, doesn't Wikipedia have a policy against citing encyclopedias or is that just some useless rumor? Deucalionite (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. WP:Copyrights states that "Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."balkanian (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. That makes our lives easier. Let's hope Encyclopedia Britannica has what we're looking for. Deucalionite (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Added sugestion in Talk:Cham Albanians. Take a look.balkanian (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing in Cham Albanians ,on the new light of evidence which proved my point that they were the most Greek but turn to Muslim religion ,and of no way a population group must be condemed of any reasons. I think you found you way back since your contrbution to Arvanitic inscription, Arvanites ,Pelasgians and so..accept my appologies of any misbehavior you might have had during your work...--Presqop2008 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

white space in Camilla article

Thanks for cleaning up after me! Drmies (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Deucalionite (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Φιλικά

Είσαι πολύ διαβασμένο και έξυπνο παλικάρι και καταλαβαίνεις... επομένως το να λες για τον Τάσο ότι αυτά που γράφει είναι για γέλια σε αδικεί. Πολύ φιλικά--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Σιγά την «εξυπνάδα» μου. Επιπλέον, δεν διαβάζεις καλά τα λόγια μου. Είπα μόνο ότι το «πείραμα» του Δρ. Κ είναι για γέλια. Τίποτε άλλο. Άντε, φιλικά. Deucalionite (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Διαβολικά ευφυής, φίλε Δευκαλιονίτη. Απορώ, πάντως, πως ενώ τα διαβάσματά μας εν πολλοίς συμπίπτουν, τα συμπεράσματά μας έχουν τόση σχέση όσο το R1a1 με τους Έλληνες. Όσο για το αν βελτιώνεται το άρθρο ή όχι τι να πω. Το αρχικό διαστρεβλωμένο τσιτάτο του ΗΣΕΕΚ από το οποίο ξεκίνησε η συζήτηση είναι ενδεικτικό για το τι τσελεμεντές είναι και η γενετική των πληθυσμών. Κρίμα....--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ξέρω ότι η συζήτηση έχει «πάει στον Άδη» που λέει ο λόγος. Γι’αυτό και προσπαθώ να την σταματήσω πριν γίνουν ζημιές πάνω στο άρθρο. Για μένα, η «γενετική των Ελλήνων» έχει ακαδημαϊκές βάσεις αλλά δεν υποστηρίζω τίποτε άλλο εκτός απ’αυτά που αναφέρουν οι επιστημονικές πηγές. Deucalionite (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Να 'μαι πάλι

Μια και η γενετική είναι του γούστου σου ρίξε τώρα μια ματιά στο άρθρο της Σέμινο που τώρα φιγουράρει αυτοδικαίως στην υποσημείωση για το R1A1 και θα πάρεις μια ιδέα για το από που προέρχεται αυτό το 35%. Στο άρθρο βέβαια ο απλότυπος έχει την παλιά του ονομασία EU19 και το 35% προκύπτει από ένα δείγμα 20 ατόμων η προέλευσή των οποίων δηλώνεται στην λεζάντα του πίνακα 1 στη σελίδα 1157. Πάρε τώρα σημειολογικό και γενετικό μαγείρεμα να χορτάσεις... (με αγάπη το λέω και όχι ειρωνικά) Εγώ δεν ανακατεύομαι άλλο.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Μην στεναχωριέσαι αδελφέ. Ο 3rdAlcove τα κανόνισε. Χα Χα Χα. Deucalionite (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Block

I have had to oversight an edit of yours, that went out of its way to pointedly name (or purport to name) another user you had a disagreement with, and a link to an offsite "outing" site which apparently contained what are supposedly details of them.

Not okay. Please do not do this again. Even if something was another person's fault, you can deal with it, without that extent of response.

I have considered your block log carefully, and although you have many blocks for other items, I have blocked you on this occasion for only 48 hours, as a first time I have seen this, and to encourage you not ever to repeat.

If it repeats it will probably be for much longer - a week, two weeks, or someone might feel it is time to consider longer. Please take this as a warning that you really do need to think carefully and not act as you have done in the past.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me. Now I can get back to work. Deucalionite (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Deucalionite (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was emailed on this by the user and have replied also by email: "[...] Warning[s] may be appropriate on some [incidents], with a direct block appropriate on others. In this case obviously a direct block seemed appropriate to me. If you would like another admin to review it, the best route would be to use the {{unblock}} request template on your talk page". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. Just forget it. Useless the lot of you. Deucalionite (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Scar of War

Looks like I placed you a SCAR OF WAR on your userpage. With this new image:

░▒▓Frogger3140▓▒░ (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

END GAME

t-_- --░▒▓Frogger3140▓▒░ (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it look like I care about your indifference? Deucalionite (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Abas (mythology)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Abas (mythology), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bookrags.com/disamb/Abas. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrastus of Cyzicus

Hi! I noticed you rated this as "start class". I wrote the article, and have researched it a bit. I believed that it contained all the knowledge on the subject that there was in existence, so could you let me know what more you think the article needs? If this is a "start" where does it go from here? I admit not to being a specialist in ancient biographies, so I'm keen to get whatever pointers you have. Thanks in advance.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I rated the article as a "Start" class being that it has content beyond merely two or three sentences. Moreover, the article contains one source (many stub-rated articles contain zero citations/sources).

My pointers are as follows:

1) Check to see if any new sources are available (i.e. Google books, etc.).

2) See if you can get a picture without violating any copyright laws.

3) Ask other users to help out. I recommend speaking to User:Yannismarou since he knows a lot about classical history.

Keep in mind, that I would gladly do all of these things myself. However, I am currently busy cleaning up Greek mythology articles. Good luck my friend and happy editing. Deucalionite (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no new sources - the guy is only mentioned in one ancient text, and never really discussed in secondary literature. Picture? He's mentioned in a line on one text - there's not going to be any pictures (and they'd hardly be copyrighted anyway). Look, I'm happy to have any help with the article, but it is not much use in rating an article if you've no time to compare what the article is to what it could be, taking the subject matter into account. If you don't want to help with an article, please just leave it alone.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but tagging articles is one of the things I do. Adding banners to discussion pages is one way to help organize and classify articles. Moreover, banners help to inform multiple WikiProjects about the existence of an article that may need improvements regardless if the article in question is not improved upon. Whether you agree with me or not, the banners remain. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrastus

I noticed you moved Adrastus to a disambiguated link Adrastus (Argive king). Per our manual of style, we try to avoid disambiguating when there is clearly a primary topic associated with the title. The appropriate thing would be to have the primary topic at Adrastus, with a header leading to Adrastus (disambiguation) at the top of the page, which there is. Cheers. Ford MF (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Deucalionite (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Curta

Please feel free to refer to my reply on my talk page about your views of Slavic archaeology, at your leisure. Cheers Hxseek (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Deucalionite (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my 700 AD map of Slavic tribes, for example, is meant to depict apparent locations of Sklavinias. The much reduced border of Byzantine Empire reflects the apparent loss of centralized control. It is not a demographic reflection stating that eveyhthing outside the purple is Slav. Although i'd like to, I do not have enough information to include every other Vlach tribe or Greek settlement outside the imperial borders, and the map would get rather crowded.

By the way, in his book, Curta sites several different labels the Byzantines used for barbarian chiefs.

Exarchos = governor. Monarchos = king, I presume. What is an ethnarkos? He also used another term (I can't recall at by heart).

And is korion a village/tribal territory? Hxseek (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I found.

1) ἄρχων (p. 326) meaning "archon" (Curta: "An archon was a ruler with full, regionally organized authority.")

2) ἕξαρχος (pp. 326-327) meaning "exarch" (Curta: "The word would later be used in the Life of St Gregory Decapolites with reference to Sclavene leaders who were subordinates of the Byzantine emperor.")

3) ὄσοι ἐν τέλει τοῦ ἕθνους (p. 327) meaning "fellow chiefs" (Curta: "...best described as a tribal confederacy.")

4) Ἠγεμών or ἠγεμόνες (p. 327) meaning "leader" or "leaders" respectively

5) ἑθνάρχαι (p. 327) meaning "...rulers of distant, almost legendary, tribes."

6) ταξιάρχοι (p. 327) meaning "appointed officers"

7) φυλάρχος (p. 327) meaning "tribal chief"

8) 'ρῆξ (p. 327) meaning "king" (Curta: "The word was often used in late Roman sources in reference to independent barbarian leaders.")

9) χωρίον (p. 323) meaning "settlement"

If you need more details, then I will be more than happy to provide them. Deucalionite (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Hxseek (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If there is anything else you need, then feel free to stop by. Deucalionite (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

will never be created

I'm curious how you can consider all the redlinks in Ludwig Thiersch "articles that will never be created", when quite plainly they will and ought to be created. I already have a draft (offline at the moment) for Lysandros Kaftantzoglou, who is clearly prominent enough to merit one, and a number of the rest already have articles on the German wikipedia, e.g. de:Heinrich Maria von Hess. --Delirium (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "ought to be created" and "actually created". Once you create the Lysandros Kaftantzoglou article, then his name will be internally linked in other existing articles. What's the point of an internal link if it leads nowhere? Deucalionite (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RED for an already written cogent explanation of the point of internal links that lead nowhere:

A new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Wikipedia yet

It goes on to explain in more detail why this practice is common. --Delirium (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that you're violating the policy on the subject: In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article --Delirium (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Violating policy my foot. WP:RED also states:

Do not create red links to articles that will never be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Yes, new articles are needed, but red links should only exist if a Wikipedian actually intends to write an article that the red link direct to. Deucalionite (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Delirium is correct, the criterium is that a target is a plausible candidate for a legitimate article. It doesn't matter if planned creation is imminent. Red links in such cases are actually useful, as they can remind readers that an article ought to be created. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Plausible" is not the same as "definite" in terms of article creation candidacy. I really doubt that red links serve as "effective reminders" given the fact that I've seen a lot of highly-crafted articles on Wikipedia that barely have any. Could it be because users and readers find red links to be collective eyesores? Could it be that red links make so-called "professional" articles look "unprofessional"? Who knows. Who cares.

I won't debate Wikipedia policies with you Future since that's your forte. However, if removing red links makes an article look better and improves its quality, then I don't see how the art of "de-linking" is so pernicious to the future of Wikipedia. The fact that users create articles regardless of the presence of red links makes one wonder if WP:RED is viable as a "practical policy".

Of course, if Delirium is gaga over a bunch of eyesore red links at the Ludwig Thiersch article, then he can marry them for all I care. Zero appreciation for efforts made towards improving Greek-related articles that happen to be "blessed" with DYK titles and yet look like wads of shit. Ha!

If removing red links makes some users cry, then I won't engage in the art. Besides, I've got bigger projects to undertake. Good night both of you. Deucalionite (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I read your remarks carefully and I took the liberty to send you an email. There is an article I believe you would be interested in. P.S. BTW Why all this fuss with Kaftantzoglou? He is most certainly a notable architect in the Greek context. If you would be interested I would be more than happy to help write it. Why not invite Delirium as well, it would be a nice opportunity for cooperation.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email response. Deucalionite (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've got nothing against Kaftantzoglou and Delirium creating an article about him. It's just that I am sick and tired of seeing the same red links in well-crafted articles that deserve to look professional instead of looking like planet-sized piles of utter crap. Red links are eyesores and WP:RED needs some good old-fashioned policy-induced tweaking given the fact that I've seen editors create articles without the help of red links that supposedly serve as "practical reminders". Moreover, I've seen plenty of FA and GA articles without red links. Like I said, Delirium can do whatever he wants with those red links at the Ludwig Thiersch article. A wise man used to tell me: My boy, at some point in your life you've just got to learn to say "fuck it, it ain't worth the grief". Deucalionite (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:46 AD disestablishments has been superseded

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:46 AD disestablishments, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:46 AD disestablishments has been superseded by a similar category (typos in name, expanding abbreviations, fixing capitalisation, renaming to comply with the "by country" format and conversions from singular to plural or vice versa). (CSD C2).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:46 AD disestablishments, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Non-exclusive ethnic group

An article that you have been involved in editing, Non-exclusive ethnic group, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-exclusive ethnic group. Thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC) .

On Epirus

Hi, whats up? On Epirus (region) you`re wrong. According to WP:NCGN the official names of a region are first, and they are listed alphabetically. The region of Epirus lies on Greece and Albania, so the official names are Albanian and Greek. Listing them alphabeticaly means that albanian is first, greek second, and then the archaich names. See WP:NCGN for further info. I`m not doing nationalistic edits, but wiki rule standards. Have a nice day.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Deucalionite (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I love your name

"Deukalion" - is there a cooler Greek name? I'm using it in one of my stories - couldn't bring myself to kill him off as planned. Just wanted to renew my support to the Ancient Greek side of things, but I am just a keen amateur at the moment. Could you please direct me to somewhere where in-depth knowledge, and I mean like etymology etc, won't be needed but where I can make a difference?

Thanks' Fuzzibloke (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Deucalionite" is a pretty snazzy name. Of course, administrators will misconstrue your compliment and assume that I am the leader of some mystical "Deucalion Cult". I'd literally shit my pants in laughter if some crazy "mop-head" were to come up to me and say: "You are hereby banned on charges of cult activity you gyro-eating, plate-breaking, backgammon-playing, bouzouki-smashing, goat-spanking, boat-humping, frappe-drinking Greek bastard". Ha! :)

Joking aside, I really wouldn't know exactly what would interest you or what articles you would want to edit. Keep in mind, however, that any amateur on Wikipedia can make a difference anywhere if he or she knows how to make proper contributions (i.e. sources, reference citations, well-crafted article content, intelligent discussion points/arguments, non-copyrighted images, etc.).

Tell me what interests you specifically regarding the Ancient Greeks and I will be more than happy to guide you in the right direction. Take it easy my friend and have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! Deucalionite (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Έστω και καθυστερημένα, σε ευχαριστώ θερμά για το αστεράκι και για τα θερμά σου λόγια!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Παρακαλώ αδελφέ. Σκοπεύεις να έρθεις πίσω; Deucalionite (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Let's try to work together. I would like to see your quotes so I can judge for myself. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Do you want to discuss things here or on the "Greeks" discussion page? Deucalionite (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs. I will go through them and come back to you once I've read them all. If what emerges is that there is, even a minority view of serious people that have doubts then this can and should be reported on the article. This would not be a violation of WP policies.--Xenovatis (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. If I have other sources, I'll forward them to you immediately. Thanks again. Deucalionite (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

I will be reading up on this. If you haven't seen it there is a new article Greek identity that houses all the stuff dropped from the Greeks article due to space constraints. My suggestion would be to not make any bold statements begin with but rather present the full quotes and let them speak for themselves. Kales Giortes!--Xenovatis (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi can we agree on a common version on the talk page? Preferably here. I don't want this to become an issue since any signs of contention would be perceived as saying that the article is not steady and subject to an edit war, which would kill its fa progress. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A proposal. Can we say that the proto-greek speakers are thought currently by science to have arisen in the central european plains but that a large part of modern greek genetic pool is obviously dated to the neolithic and prior. That accepts what you want to say and is in line with current science.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Proto-Greeks are thought to have emerged in Central Europe, in what is called today the Panonian plain. They probably arrived in the area now referred to as "Greece" (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) at the end of the third millennium BC. There they mingled with the native pre-Hellenic populations with the result that a large part of the Greek genetic pool as studied today can be traced to the Neolithic. By the 16th century BCE this fusion had created the civilization we call Mycenaean today. The Mycenaeans were the first Greek-speaking people, as attested by the Iliad and Odyssey and later the deciphering of their Linear B script.

dont mind the cite its from a named britannica ref--Xenovatis (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Please amend the above as you see fit so that it is a synthesis containing all the relevant information. I know there is no physical evidence but if you chaeck the sources these are modern scientists who think that and anyway I thought i had reworded it so that it accomodates your sources. In effect they are not contradictory. Some proto-greek speakers came from CE and mingled with natives. Genetically we have material from both.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Give me a minute. Deucalionite (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Aramgar seems to have issues with your proposal. Why don't you run my take to him and see what he says? If we remove the word "progenitors" and instead use something that synthesizes the accepted view of an IE migration with the findings that a large part of the gene pool can be traced to prehistoric times we could come up with a compromise everyone will accept.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Aramgar seems to have issues with hard evidence that constitutes the bedrock of all academic/scientific knowledge. Deucalionite (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I found this from a WP:RS.

Mallory, James (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. New York: Routledge. p. 244. ISBN 1-884964-98-2.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&pg=PA244&dq=proto-greeks&as_brr=3&hl=el

--Xenovatis (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also here--Xenovatis (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and all, but "Neolithic Greece" is more than just Sesklo and Dimini (though both are prominent sites). Also, linguistic theories change over time. Again, hard evidence is what should be brought to the table. If there is indeed an "Indo-European invasion" of sorts, then there should be a major cultural break (not attributed to a natural cataclysm) in the archaeological record. By the way, the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture is a tertiary source even if it looks secondary. Deucalionite (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the consensus currently in the academic world is that there was a proto-greek invasion. Whatever the truth may in fact be WP must report what the academic consensus is.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

here too--Xenovatis (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular. Maintaining the consensus view for the sake of policy is one thing. However, maintaining the consensus view for the sake of 19th century scholarship masquerading as "modern science" is another. This is why we have to incorporate and maintain a contrasting viewpoint that reveals the faults behind the "Out of Central Europe" theory. As editors, we cannot deny the physical evidence forever. Deucalionite (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK so you agree that we have to maintain the conensus view for sake of policy. As per WP rules all views can be presented depending on their relevant acceptance and the length of the article. Since the part devoted to the farthest origin of Greeks is two sentences we can't include the lesser established views. I would suggest a separate article on the origin of Greeks where these issues can be explored at depth.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus view" has faults and they should be pointed out. It's called academic rigor. Deucalionite (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it is also (1) WP:OR and (2) not justified by the space devoted, that is why I suggested a separate article. Anyway let's please not have an edit war. I'll ask 3dAlcove to drop by here so we can discuss this and reach a consensus. Se eucharisto gia tin ypomoni sou.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, do start a new article. Let's leave the Pelasgians out of this since merely two lines are devoted to the IE part. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not usually this patient, but I appreciate all of this collaboration towards resolving this impasse. By the way, nothing in the evidence I submitted is OR. And I am not promoting anything that is related to the "Pelasgians" so let's please stay focused. I do not recommend moving anything to another article since that would give abstract IE theories too much weight without any physical proof to substantiate them. As far as I'm concerned, languages are socially constructed and we can't always depend on linguistic reconstructions to figure out what transpired in prehistoric times. Keep the consensus view, but reveal its faults. This is how theories and articles should be tempered. Nothing is conclusive without hard evidence. Deucalionite (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes there may not be physical proof but the academic consensus accepts them anyway. WP should reflect that. That is all. It doesn't have to do with whtat is true or not and we are not debating that. We are debating WP policy and that is clearly saying we should use the consensus, whatever our opinion of its truth value.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(un)Well, what can I say; I don't think that sentence should be included at all. The cited sources (esp. the EIEC) mention the possible scenarios and their weaknesses which include association with particular archaeological items (eg pottery) and levels of destruction (of course Drews' takes a clear stand on the issue, after all it was cited as expressing a particular viewpoint). Nonetheless, scholarship opinion is in agreement that the "IE ancestor of Greek" came from without, so I really don't understand what the problem is here. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we agreed we wouldn't have an edit war on this and we would establish consensus before changes. I will not revert your changes but I want us to reach a consensus. First one question. Since we agree that there were no Greek speakers in prehistoric times there is no reason to press this further. It doesn't belong on a two sentence description which is only two sentences because you insist on adding another one where one briefly mentioning the academic consensus would have sufficed.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Relax my friend, this isn't an edit war. In fact, I complimented 3rdAlcove on his contributions. All I'm doing is accepting the consensus view for what it is: faulty. My adding two sentences helps to inject a sense of realism into a largely abstract construct supported by "consensus scholarship". Of course, you are right to insist that we do things collaboratively so that we avoid any potential animus. Tell me what exactly you want to collaborate on, and I will do my best to help. Deucalionite (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. How about this then: Proto-Greeks are thought to have emerged in Central Europe, in what is called today the Panonian plain. They probably arrived in the area now referred to as "Greece" (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) at the end of the third millennium BC but as there is little physical evidence to support this theory some contend that they were present in mainland Greece already in the Neolithic. The mingling of the proto-Greek speakers with the pre-Hellenic populations gave rise to the Mycenaean Greeks. They were the first Greek-speaking people, as attested by the Iliad and Odyssey and later the deciphering of their Linear B script.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That'd be better but, honestly, not every word encoded by Linear B can be read (nevermind with absolute certainty) either. We can still accept the mainstream consensus (ie the language is Greek) in that case and not refer people to views that place the Greek-speakers in Greece after 1200 BC. For example. Plus, the neolithic view is mentioned in the EIEC. We shouldn't assume that the readers can't read an article without us holding their hands. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.I would like to see your counter-proposal so we can get the ball rolling. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple: remove D's addition. As far as I'm concerned, I can't see any compromise on this particular issue but I'll of course still accept your version 1000 times over the current one. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with how it is now (not that I mind making it better)? Deucalionite (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight? The additions make it painfully clear to the reader that, well, some people are just trying a bit too hard to detract from the view. It's a general article about Greeks, for goodness' sake, not one on Aegean prehistory where one would go at length about each view (much like that hated EIEC does, in condensed form). 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the WP:UNDUE issue. Since it is just one sentence it clearly doesn't have enough space for anything but the consensus. The best solution would be a separate article dealing with just that and where more depth can be given so that minority views are also expounded.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue isn't about undue weight. It is about the validity of the consensus view and whether or not it holds water. I am not saying that we have to incorporate a thousand different viewpoints or the ones in the EIEC. However, the additions I provided are simple enough and potent enough to show that the consensus view is not 100% right. Deucalionite (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

SInce it is just one (1) sentence it is about undue weight. Whether the consensus is right or wrong is immaterial, that is what it is.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:Why not write a separate article on the descent of the proto-greeks that could be linked in that section in the see also part above? --Xenovatis (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It is our job as editors to test everything, including consensus views. Writing a separate article only develops conflicting information that will only confuse readers since article information should be consistent. As far as I can tell, the section looks fine as it is since the consensus view is the topic sentence. That two sentences are added afterwards to provide a contrasting view does not signify the "death-knell" of the consensus view. All they do is reveal the faults of the consensus view, which in turn helps readers understand that it is not perfect. Come on. Deucalionite (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because no case is 100% airtight or 100% certain doesn't mean we can't mention the 2200 - 1900 period as the most preferred one. I mean, I didn't even mention the 1600 view (e.g. Drews) in the main text since I realise fewer scholars follow it. Similarly Renfrew (or are you aiming for something pre-Neolithic?) should not be mentioned in the main text, in an article discussing general Greek history. Otherwise, we'd treat each, uncertain bit by writing paragraphs upon paragraphs on it. Hell, plenty of the "further reading" section wouldn't be incorporated in the article, let alone such trivialities (trivialities in this context, once again). 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(un) The information we are giving is not conflicting. We are reporting the consensus view on the main, reporting the consensus view on the other article and then adding the minority views. We are thus letting facts speak for themselves. And no it is not our job to deny consensus view but report it.

From WP:UNDUE

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

--Xenovatis (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys relax. I have no intention of altering the consensus view. In fact, the additions I provided are only meant to temper it. Granted, a general article needs a consensus view without any other views that may be construed as annoying trivialities. However, the "views" I submitted work hand-in-hand with the consensus view since they come from scholars adept in IE studies. The archaeological data, of course, is neither trivial nor should it be construed as something that violates Wikipedia policy. It's just a reference-based example meant to provide a concrete dimension to the "general origins of the Greeks". Data is data and as editors we should be more concerned with content quality rather than with "weight of view".

I think the section is fine as long as no one (including myself) changes the state of the topic sentence and the realities behind the consensus view shown in my additions. Let's please put this to rest and enjoy the rest of the holidays. Deucalionite (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The section is not fine and it is there only because we have agreed not to rever anything before a consensus is reached. Look here is yet another suggestion. How about we don't mention the minority view in the actual text but make it into a one sentence note that says: "As there have been no physical evidence to support the consensus view some contend that they were present there since the Neolithic. For example citation1, citation2, citation3."--Xenovatis (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The "minority view" coincides too neatly with the consensus view to be thrown away in "notation hell" where vandals don't even care to tread.

I'll compromise and recommend one sentence in the section: "However, there is no physical evidence to support this theory since they were likely to have been present there since prehistoric times." Then we add the two citations I provided. This, I think, should resolve our so-called "issue" with WP:UNDUE. Deucalionite (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok try this:"Due to the paucity of physical evidence in supprot of that theory some have suggested proto-greeks might have been present there since well before that time +citations"--Xenovatis (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So far so good my friend. How about this: "Due to the paucity of physical evidence in support of this theory, it is likely that the proto-Greeks were present there since prehistoric times." We can't use the phrase "some contend" otherwise we'll be accused of using weasel words. Deucalionite (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a weasel word since it is a minority view and hence we can't use "likely". Try this:"Due to the paucity of physical evidence in support of this theory, it has been suggested that the proto-Greeks were present there since prehistoric times."--Xenovatis (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

But isn't "likely" just another word for "possible"? Or am I mistaken? By the way, the sentence so far is superb. Deucalionite (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Greeks are thought to have emerged in Central Europe, in what is called today the Panonian plain. They probably arrived in the area now referred to as "Greece" (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) at the end of the third millennium BC.Due to the paucity of physical evidence in support of this theory, it has been suggested that the proto-Greeks were present there since prehistoric times. The mingling of the proto-Greek speakers with the pre-Hellenic populations gave rise to the Mycenaean Greeks. They were the first Greek-speaking people, as attested by the Iliad and Odyssey and later the deciphering of their Linear B script.

This OK then?--Xenovatis (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's good, but I think the paragraph would be stronger without the 19th century "admixture fetish". Here:

"Proto-Greeks are thought to have emerged in Central Europe, in what is called today the Pannonian Plain. They probably arrived in the area now referred to as "Greece" (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) at the end of the third millennium BC. Due to the paucity of physical evidence in support of this theory, it has been suggested that the proto-Greeks were present there since prehistoric times. The Mycenaeans were ultimately the first Greek-speaking people, as attested by the Iliad and Odyssey and later the deciphering of their Linear B script."

Let's try to keep things simple and concise. Deucalionite (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I got it from Britannica but I don't care either way. OK I will use the paragraph you supplied above. I am glad we settled that. Kalynyhta!--Xenovatis (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad we've reached a consensus adelphe. Thank you very much for all of your help and I apologize if I frustrated you with my obstinence. Deucalionite (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Deucalionite (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Zzzzzz. (New Years' hangover)

• Deucalionite: "I demand to be unblocked, because I was defending a consensus version of the article that another user and I established on my discussion page."
• Administrator: "48 hours."
• Deucalionite: "But I wasn't the only one edit-warring!"
• Administrator: "One more outburst like that and I'll extend your block!"
• Deucalionite: "But what about the acts of incivility perpetuated by other users?!"
• Administrator: "60 hours."
• Deucalionite: "I know I'm obstinate, but I'm trying to improve the Greeks article by incorporating hard evidence!"
• Administrator: "72 hours."
• Deucalionite: "It's not fair that other editors treat me like shit and get away with it!"
• Administrator: "96 hours."
• Deucalionite: "Achoo!"
• Administrator: "108 hours."
• Deucalionite: "But that was just a sneeze!"
• Administrator: "120 hours."
• Deucalionite: "You bastard."
• Administrator: "Alright. 48 hours."

Zzzzzz. (Still bashed) Deucalionite (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, what? Please reformat your request to clearly state why you should be unblocked. This may be of some help. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

LOL, some admins are a bit too thick to understand basic humor... Wikipedia is circling the drain... 85.73.250.22 (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 5 2009 to Greeks

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Να 'σαι καλά

Το βρήκα πριν από λίγο και σ' ευχαριστώ πολύ. Προσωπικά διατηρώ τις αμφιβολίες μου για την ποιότητα των συνεισφορών μου, αλλά τουλάχιστον υπήρξα πάντοτε ειλικρινής στις προθέσεις μου (έτσι θέλω να νομίζω τουλάχιστον). Σου εύχομαι πάντως από καρδιάς καλή χρονιά γεμάτη υγεία, ευτυχία και προσωπική πλησμονή. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation?

You have been very helpful in the past and honestly you deserve the name Mentor. Thank you, if I did not do it before …but i think i have done ..Could you do the Mediation between me and Fut.Purf , I think that our dispute is not so serious as to ask Arbitration Committee..Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.31.31 (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen Dodona, I appreciate you coming to me despite whatever disputes we may have had in the past. However, my position as a Wikipedia editor is quite delicate. Still, if you are intent on changing your editing habits, then this is what you should do:

1) Stay away from the Pelasgians article. Stay away! If you are caught editing there again, you will only prove to Future Perfect and other users that you will never change.

2) Avoid using anti-elitist rhetoric. By angering administrators, you lessen your chances of convincing them to remove the ban on your account.

3) Tone done the sarcasm. Trust me, administrators look down on "smart asses".

4) Try to show that you are good at something. Edit some Albania-related articles that have nothing to do with the Pelasgians.

5) Contact other Albanians and explain to them your situation in English. Try to see if they can give you "article assignments" (i.e. WikiProject Albania). If you converse in Albanian, then administrators will assume that you are up to something.

6) If you decide to consult with an impartial administrator, then tell him/her that you are a banned user but that you accept being banned from specific articles (i.e. Pelasgians) in exchange for having the ban on your account lifted.

7) If all else fails, email Jimbo Wales and see if that'll get you anywhere.

This is as far as I can go in terms of giving you advice. There is not much I can do to help you in the mediation process (if the Arbitration Committee decides to give you a fair "hearing").

Take care and do your best to stay out of trouble. Deucalionite (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice really but I will choose not to give up from certain preferred subjects as pelasgians for all Albanians but I will try to find other suitable way and for the rest of your advice very useful, thank you again ..bthw are you a Maniot? I did meet some…:) user:dodona

Dodona, your sources and standpoints have been thoroughly disproved by multiple editors at the Pelasgians article. If you continue to insist on making contributions there, then you will only agitate more users and convince Future Perfect to never ever lift the ban on your account.

The advice I gave you can only help if you choose to improve your editing habits. However, I doubt you'll get far if in the end you'll simply go back to doing the things that got you banned in the first place. By the way, I'm not a Maniot. Deucalionite (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Varico

Hi! I described my last change in the article thus: "Then, please explain why are you erasing the information with the sources. The discussion page is a right place". I know, you'll read it, but I want to ask you again to try to find a way to discuss the situation. I really don't know what is your point. Maybe our differences aren't so big. Regards, --Males (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is simple. Since the burden of proof is on your shoulders, you are obligated to provide secondary sources in English. That you placed two Bulgarian sources doesn't really tell anyone how prominent Nikola Andreev and Nikola Milev are unless you provide a direct translation. Moreover, the sources themselves would be more relevant to the respective articles they are associated with rather than to the Variko article. Your best bet is to create the articles themselves and prove the respective notability of both Nikola Andreev and Nikola Milev before insisting on having their names placed in the Variko article. Deucalionite (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OК! I am agree - I'll start to create articles about Milev and Andreev. I think that it is a good idea. I'll start with professor Milev. (The only problem to provide a direct translatation of Bulgarian sources is that there are too many information about Milev and it would be a hard work :). Milev was anticomunist, but even until 1989 his works was treated in the historiograophical texbooks for the students in Bulgarian universities.) After the beginning of the each of new articles I'll restore the information in the article about their birthplace.--Males (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad we're on the same page. You also might want to ask User:TodorBozhinov to help out since he claims to have a lot of experience with FA articles. As soon as you create those articles (with some translated Bulgarian sources to help out English readers), then you can go ahead and list them in the Variko article. Sounds good? Deucalionite (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"... editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly". Says nothing of "obligated to provide secondary sources in English". One more revert and you'll be blocked, be careful with those. Also, it's not like I'm claiming anything. Todor→Bozhinov 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, spare me the attitude. Besides, I said that Bulgarian sources need to be translated if they are going to be used. Deucalionite (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Variko. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Andrew c ^[talk] 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Deucalionite (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I only made two reverts in one day mainly in response to Bozhinov's negative attitude towards my attempts at helping Males improve the Variko article by creating the Nikola Milev and Nikola Andreev articles. In fact, due to the constructive collaborations between myself and Males, the latter user has actually created the Nikola Milev article. Why did Bozhinov continue to engage in edit-warring rather than contribute to the article creation process with Males? By removing this ban, I will be able to further help Males complete his work in accordance to the straightforward advice I gave him. Please refer to my discussion page for details and note the crass interjection of Bozhinov in the constructive discussions I was having with Males. Thank you and I hope you come to a decision soon. Deucalionite (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per "If you want to keep my account blocked for a week, then have fun. I need the vacation anyway. Later nerds. Zzzzz. Deucalionite (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)" (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh-hem. Nerds candy if you actually paid attention to the comedic use of an internal link. Deucalionite (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My attitude is a direct response to your trolling: your groundless reverts of well-sourced content are trollish enough, but posting a 3RR warning to someone who has just warned you of 3RR is the paragon of trolling. And I don't think I'm breaking WP:CIVIL in any way. But seriously, comments like "Bulgarian sources are unhelpful unless translated" sound funny to say the least when juxtaposed with stuff like Simeon I of Bulgaria. And what's the problem anyway, you doubt those guys were born in Variko or what? Why don't you haunt some other article stuffed with (unsourced and mostly unnotable) "famous locals", like Polykastro? Or is the Bulgarian nationality of these people the problem? Get to realize that there's no way you can move those two names out of there anymore. Notability? Check. Reliable references? Check. Compliance to guidelines? Check. Asking for the articles to be created is a good thing, but it's no reason to revert that the names are red links.

P.S. To blocking admin: technically he's only got three edits in the last 24 hours, though it's a margin of some 9 minutes (17:48 yesterday–17:57 today). I'd like to support his request to be unblocked: his promise that he won't revert again and an apology will be enough for me, and he can actually be of use in creating those biographies. The text of his request might be directed against me, but I can put up with that. A week is a bit too harsh in my opinion. Thanks. Todor→Bozhinov 17:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your attitude stems from your sense of hurt pride: "Are you teaching me about foreign sources? I've written FAs using such." But that's not the point. You deliberately chose to consistently engage in edit-warring rather than participate in the constructive collaborations between myself and Males. That I asked for translated foreign sources was a request meant to enhance their reliability and verifiability in the eyes of English readers. Ultimately, the problem here is not whether two Bulgarians were born in Variko (though you would assume that). The issue here is whether or not there is enough evidence to substantiate their notability with or without foreign sources. Also, your checklist is somewhat pointless given the fact that you have not spearheaded any efforts to create articles and thus provide practical solutions to the "Variko Impasse". I, on the other hand, invested my time towards helping a user make positive contributions to Wikipedia despite whatever disagreements were on the table.

Though I appreciate your efforts to have the administrator unblock me, I recommend that you don't do me any favors. Though I have every intention of helping Males, I refuse to apologize to you on the grounds that you could have stopped by my discussion page anytime and provide your standpoints. Instead, you chose to perpetuate an edit-war instead of collaborating with either myself or with Males. I could care less about what you have to say at this point since I have yet to see you do anything constructive with the articles in question. You can either prove me wrong and be the bigger user or accomplish nothing by continuing to distribute useless assumptions about me. The choice is yours to make. Deucalionite (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For the record, I would have created "bare-bone articles" for both Nikola Milev and Nikola Andreev (in order to overcome the "Variko Impasse") had I not been blocked. Since Males seems intent on following through with the helpful advice I gave him, I'm sure he'll succeed in his writing of two intriguing articles. In the end, the community will surely commend him for his constructive edits. Deucalionite (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, you hurt my pride, I'm gonna cry. The FAs are just an example that foreign sources work, simple as that. You might be accusing me of engaging in edit-warring, but the truth is, you didn't attempt to discuss either (and you're the one who has absurd reverts to back with explanations). The removal of those two names is bordering vandalism, you simply have no arguments to defend that: "translated foreign sources", didn't you notice the foreign sources have been translated for the last couple of days? What more do you want than that? I frankly don't see what your reverts are based on. And quite honestly, I did rely on 3RR to stop your blind reverting; I didn't expect you to get blocked, but I expected you to stop on your own, ending that "conflict". It worked, it always does.

Don't worry about those articles, I've already copyedited the one about Milev and I'll assist with the other one. It helps a lot that I can actually read Bulgarian. And I still can't see why the fact that those two names used to be red links made you remove them a number of times.

I'm still OK with having you unblocked and joining the effort to actually create those articles. Whether you'll admit it or not, your reverts have been ridiculous and I'm glad you're willing to stop with them and actually co-operate. That's enough for me. Todor→Bozhinov 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. If you keep crying now, I'm sure you'll fill up the Grand Canyon mighty fast. But your hurt pride is still not the point. Truth be told, I did notice something in the parentheses when I read the reference citations, but if you call a bunch of choppy fragments "translations", then you need a crash course in MLA badly. Also, I stated in one of my edit summaries that the reference citations (if valid) were better off being placed in the respective articles they are associated with. Of course, red links were all that the reference citations were associated with (indicating a hint of lethargy on the part of whoever put them there in the first place).

I'm not worried about the articles. In fact, I was the one who informed Males to speak with you (I'm glad he did for what it's worth). So, I don't think your assessments regarding 3RR mean anything given the fact that you perpetuated an edit war while I was building bridges with Males (who, mind you, was the first to complain about my "scandalous edits"). The difference between you and him is that the latter took the intelligent route and took his grievances directly to me.

And for the record, my "reverts" were hardly ridiculous if you take into serious consideration the fact that not everyone is blessed with the ability to read and understand Bulgarian (let alone a bunch of fragmentary "translations"). But if you really think about it, no one would have bothered to write the Nikola Milev and the Nikola Andreev articles had it not been for the "Variko Impasse". In the end, Wikipedia wins. Huzzah. Deucalionite (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to decline your request at this time, but I am going to make an observation and possibly allow other administrators to comment. You are not a new user that is unaware of the rules and the potential penalties for breaking those rules. You had received a warning for edit warring a half hour or so before you decided to ignore it and revert anyway. As such, I think that a block was justified. The question for me is how long the block should be. I feel that a week might have been a little bit extreme. I might be willing to reduce it to 48 hours, depending on the opinion of the blocking admin. Trusilver 19:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you not declining my request. You should know, however, that the warning was ill-timed. After it was sent to me, I was actually working on the Nikola Milev and Nikola Andreev articles in order to overcome the "Variko Impasse". Moreover, the warning was an extension of certain user's negative attitude rather than a sincere and straightforward request for collaboration (which, mind you, I already established with Males on my discussion page). Had Todor avoided the typical ban threats, I am sure his viewpoints would have been taken into consideration had he bothered to take his grievances with me. Meh. Deucalionite (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The user was already blocked for 3RR for 48 hours on January 5th. IMO, blocks for the similar offenses should get worse with repeat offenses. Perhaps one week may have been too much (I don't think so, hence why I chose it). If someone else wants to reduce, I won't object, but I would ask the admin to consider something more than 48 hours in the spirit of escalating blocks. As it stands, Deucalioninte removed the "notable persons" section of the article 7 times in under 46 hours. 3RR is not a right. You can't go and revert up to the limit every day indefinitely. Someone that has been here for along time, has been blocked for edit warring just earlier this month, and has been warned should know better. There is no excuse for it. If I'm missing something here, I'm totally open for admin review though (and feel free to be bold admins).-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. So, you think a week will "teach me a lesson" when technically a day will do just fine? Makes about as much sense as cherry-picking victims for 3RR (as if it doesn't happen). If you want to keep my account blocked for a week, then have fun. I need the vacation anyway. Later nerds. Zzzzz. Deucalionite (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I see that you have been keeping busy. I was wondering if you'd enlighten me as to what the following mean (and what their phoenetic pronounciation would be):

καλύβαι

θηριώης

άγριώτερος

ἔνσπονδοι

Regards, Hxseek (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to help.

καλύβαι - Definition: "military tents", Pronunciation: "ka-lee-ve" (short "a" in "ka", emphasis on "lee", and short "e" in "ve").

Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs, p. 38. "Procopius constantly referred to Sclavenes in relation to Antes and Huns or to other nomads. When talking about Slavic dwellings, he employed καλύβαι, a phrase he only used for military tents and for Moorish compounds."

θηριώδης - Definition: "hostile" (technically "beastly"), Pronunciation: "thee-ree-o-thees" ("th" as in "thing" for the first syllable, emphasis on "o", "th" as in "these" for the last syllable).

άγριώτερος - Definition: "hostile" (technically "wild"), Pronunciation: "a-gree-o-te-ros" ("a" as in "at", soft "g" in "gree", emphasis on "o", "te" as in "tether", and short "o" in "ros").

Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs, p. 38. "Procopius' attitude toward Sclavenes is altogether not hostile, for to him they are neither θηριώδης, nor άγριώτερος, as most other barbarians are described (e.g., the Herules)."

ἔνσπονδοι - Definition: "allies" (technically "[military] dependents"), Pronunciation: "en-spon-thee" ("en" as in "end", short "o" in "spon", and "thee" as in "thee").

Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs, p. 80. "Justinian promised to give them the city and the region around it, and to pay them great sums of money, on condition that they should become his allies (ἔνσπονδοι) and constantly block the way against the Huns, 'when they wished to overrun the Roman domain'."

Let me know if there is anything else you need translated. Take it easy my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great. I appreciated it buddy Hxseek (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help

Hi! I edited the Cham Albanians article, and added a lot of information. Please, see if it is relevant, and lets discuss, in order to finish with that page. Do you have time? Thanks for your collaboration. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to help out. All I ask is that you give me a day or two to fully review the article so that I can provide you with a full report. Take it easy my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks again!Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your assessmentsBalkanian`s word (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I wonder if articles of newspapers are RS. I have full access on NYT archive, and I can find articles since 1850, about the region. Can we use them?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what WP:RS states: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."

Yes, the Cham Albanians are not within the realm of scientific breakthroughs and/or ancient discoveries that would allow us to ultimately cite newspaper articles. However, we should technically avoid citing newspapers since their ability to "misrepresent" things including "[academic/scientific] results" forces us to fall back to scholarly secondary sources. I think WP:RS is an intelligent enough policy to notice that newspapers are driven by competition in merely producing stories. As a result, there is the possibility for newspapers to provide different accounts of the same event/issue. If we are going to cite different newspapers, then we have to academically scrutinize their stories as brutally as possible. No exceptions. If the stories generated by newspapers are factually questionable from an academic/scientific standpoint, then there are ultimately useless. Deucalionite (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Second question: Is Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition a RS. Can we use it as a reference?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with encyclopedias. But if you're going to cite Encyclopedia Britannica, then it would be best to cite a more recent edition (i.e. 1990s-present). I mean 1911 is a really long time ago and could contain academically erroneous data if cited. I'm not saying that the 1911 edition is completely worthless since Wikipedia uses it profusely. However, it would be best to compare the 1911 edition to more recent editions of EB to see if they are academically/scientifically consistent. If they're not, then your safest bet is to go for the more recent edition. As a reminder, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary sources. Take it easy my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for a 3RR violation just after returning from a 1-week block. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Krima

Ela re file, pano sto kalitero. Otan tha telioname to Cham Albanians efages dekaimero block. Telos panton, an thes na me voithisis na teliosume to arthro, tha perimeno sxetikes paremboles sou sto diko sou talk page. Se exo vali sto watch. By the way, exeis IM h skype gia na milisume apeythias?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I wouldn't worry. I've been banned so many times, it just doesn't bother me anymore. In fact, the good thing about getting banned is that it gives you time to realize just how terrible Wikipedia is. I literally can't wait to be permanently banned so that my horrible wiki-addiction can finally be broken. Of course, before that particular day arrives, I'll help you finish up the Cham Albanians article. It's the least I could do for a friendly jelim like yourself.

Listen, could you do me a couple of favors? I would really appreciate it.

1) Can you go to the discussion page at the Greeks article and leave the following message for Macrakis? (Tell him I sent you since I don't intend to discuss things there and risk evading my ban.)

"Gene flow in reference to allele frequencies mainly determines gene migration. However, in order to properly determine admixture levels in any specific group, genetic analyses of paternal and maternal ancestries/lineages (mtDNA, X and Y chromosomes) would be more appropriate. Even if the study infers to "genetic mixing", the wording renders the inference as ultimately inconclusive ("may reflect heavy historical gene flow known between Greece and other populations of the eastern Mediterranean" [known by whom?]). If you read Simoni's work ("Patterns of Gene Flow Inferred from Genetic Distances in the Mediterranean Region". Hum Biol; 71:399-415), you'll understand that gene flow is technically a sharp line splitting the Mediterranean in half from "Gibraltar to Lebanon" and that it is "a joint product of initial geographic isolation and successive cultural divergence, leading to the origin of cultural barriers to population admixture". Of course, Greek, Middle Eastern, and North African populations were sampled. You might want to tweak your "genetic migration always equals genetic mixing" argument. Cheers."

2) Take it easy on Alexikoua. As far as I remember, he helped to tweak the Cham Albanians article after I overhauled it. Tell him, however, that Vickers is more reliable than the IMIR website because the former is a secondary source that at least contains a bibliography necessary for fact-checking. Of course, if Alexikoua manages to find evidence of how the IMIR establishes its demographic estimates (i.e. academic/scientific methodologies), then he should provide any and all pertinent links on the discussion page.

If you need help with anything else, then feel free to contact me. Deucalionite (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Do you have an IM, or skype to talk directly?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, I do not have an IM account or a Skype account. But you can email me at deucalionite33 at yahoo.com if you have any questions that need to be addressed off-wiki. Take it easy and thanks for helping out a Greek scapegoat. Bahhh! :) Deucalionite (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome back my friend.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to be back. Deucalionite (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I had terrible discussions today:-), here and here. Please, take part. The lead on Cham Albanians, (our consensus one) was reverted by Future Perfect, what do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me some time to review everything. Deucalionite (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I brought it up on ANI here. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Deucalionite (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

Ok, my friend. I see your dispute with Fut. Have a good time, and we`ll have time to make that article:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Greeks: comment

Hello, good that you cleared out those references at Byzantine Greeks. I was under the impression that the claim rested entirely upon the 19th-century source, but apparently this is not the case. Without getting into details, though, I think the issue of Byzantine ethnicity is more complicated than is suggested. For instance, the statement that "inhabitants of the empire were of Greek ancestry" may hold true for the Palaeologan empire, but it is obviously inaccurate for the earlier empire, which comprised not only Greeks but also Syrians, Isaurians, Egyptians, Armenians and other peoples. It seems paradoxical for the article to recognize this multi-ethnic composition, as it does, on the one hand, while ignoring it in the general definition of "Byzantine Empire" on the other. Iblardi (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Byzantine ethnicity is not that complicated. Despite Byzantium having been multi-ethnic and multi-cultural during its early years, the Greeks were the dominant linguistic and ethno-cultural force behind its overall geopolitical dynamics. Even a good portion of the "Hellenized" groups within Byzantium were ethnically akin to the Greeks (i.e. Thracians). The so-called "paradox" you are referring to is intertwined with nothing more than Byzantine political fancies. From 330 AD up until 1204 AD, it was politically trendy to claim the historical legacy of the ancient Romans (especially during the reign of Emperor Justinian). From 1204 AD up until the fall of Byzantium in 1453 AD, it was politically trendy to claim the historical legacy of the ancient Greeks. Despite these political changes, the Greeks still maintained their Greek ethnic identity, Roman political citizenship, and their Orthodox Christian faith. This "triumvirate" is what defines a "true Byzantine" if you want to get really technical. Despite whatever exceptions you may cite, August Heisenberg ultimately speaks for all Byzantinists. Cheers. Deucalionite (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted some of the wording since your last edit. I am wondering, though, what exactly should be understood under "Greek culture" in Byzantine context. Is this meant to refer to more than Byzantine literature and visual arts (especially at the imperial court in Constantinople) building on classical Greek and Hellenistic models? It is often claimed that Byzantium underwent heavy influence from the Middle East, for instance in the development of its court ceremonial. Here again, I think it is difficult to distinguish the "genuinely Greek" elements from other influences and determine the relative importance of its role. And do we do this on the base of the culture of the Byzantine elite or on popular culture, which should then considered to be fairly homogeneous? Iblardi (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We can deem "[medieval] Greek culture" as a general category encompassing Byzantine literature, visual arts, songs, proverbs, folk tales, etc. I believe it was sometime during the Isaurian era that Byzantium adopted many Middle Eastern cultural norms. However, these dynamics can be placed within the context of Byzantine evolutionary culture rather than Byzantine original culture. The former paradigm entails a series of processes in which "genuinely Greek" elements acknowledge and utilize different cultural norms through trade and political discourse. The latter paradigm entails the tendency among the "genuinely Greek" elements of Byzantium to engage in "othering processes", which in turn renders them steadfast to their Greco-Roman heritage despite their adopting foreign ideas out of mere curiosity and/or fascination. Ultimately, these two paradigms reflect the tendency among the "genuinely Greek elements" to preserve their unique identity while enriching it through their ability to adapt to changing socio-economic and even geopolitical circumstances. We can ultimately state that Byzantium was "relatively homogeneous" despite its "imperial runs" when it could not avoid having to incorporate foreign peoples for political and military purposes. On the issue of court ceremonies, we can regard them as an amalgamation of Byzantine evolutionary culture and Byzantine original culture (remember, this is a dynamic that coincides with shifting political fancies).

Sorry if this is all confusing. Byzantium is one hell of a beast to tame (1000 years worth of data to digest). Deucalionite (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I have asked a peer review about Cham Albanians. Please join.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You need a fix

Come on my friend, you see that it is too foolish a page like that. My proposal is not nationalistic at all, it is just on sources. Saying that they were integrated into the Greek nation, makes pretty clear that they precived Greek cultural values, saying they were ethnically Albanians, means that they were originally having Albanian traditions (which is undisputed) and language. Saying that they had a regional identity, means that they were Souliotes. That`s all. I am clear, not nationalistic and not POV. Keep it real:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever called you "nationalistic" my friend, but I appreciate your patience in this somewhat sensitive matter. Yes, there was a bit of a scuffle when I looked over your sources and couldn't, for the life of me, find the underlying forces defining "Soulioteness". Even the other sources you listed (except for Arnakis) tend to have the same problem.

The reason I'm so stubborn is because I hate it when scholars take things for granted and provide no nuanced explanations that describe their respective standpoints. It's like reading a book that you think contains an inkling of professionalism only to be disappointed by things like "Souliotes were Greeks because they were Greeks" or "Souliotes were Albanians because they were Albanians". It's just not enough anymore.

To call the Souliotes "ethnic Albanians" only makes sense if "Albanian-ness" refers to more than just a linguistic identity. We can't deny that there were Greeks who spoke Albanian. It may be the case that prior to their ascent into the mountains, the Greeks were culturally Albanized prior to 1600 AD. The Souliotes are a unique Albanian-speaking group, because they emphasize the inherent Byzantine cultural traditions/rituals of their religion. If I'm not mistaken, the religion of most Albanians is Albanianism since their religiously schismatic nature is attested as far back as the 1300's (Simon Fitzsimmons, if we assume he's accurate). Had the Souliotes converted to Islam (or whatever religion was available) in order to conveniently maintain their lands and arms, then your case would be very strong.

I think we should review our sources and find nuanced reasons why each scholar believes the Souliotes to be either Greek or Albanian before making any changes to the article. Forget nationalism or "ethnic maximalism". Nothing should be taken for granted. So far, Arnakis follows this kind of mentality (I'm not saying he's perfect, but that he's pretty damn decent for avoiding the typical "Only Greek vs. Only Albanian" dichotomy.) Deucalionite (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you in 2 points:

1.Greeks were Albanized prior to 1600? That is impossible, unhistorical and crazy. How can Greeks (whose language was a lingua franca of the time and their culture was spread throughout the world) be Albanized, when a sense of Albanians did not have even a written proof of their language?

2.You make a big confusion. Being an Albanian does not mean that you cannot be an orthodox. Orthodox Albanians live from Korca and Berat, which are the main centres of Albanian orthodoxy, to Kavaja and even Durres. How could it be that the Southern Albanians (Cham-speaking) were only Muslims, when the Orthodox influence was pretty high in Southern Albania, much more than Tirana and Berat?

Arnakis speaks about nationality not about ethnicity, and as such, I cannot agree with you to add him as a reference about ethnicity. On the other hand we should have Gounaris too, because as far as I saw, he was pretty NPOV in his book, if Fut cites him correctly. In every case, a historian which says that ethnicity and religion are the same thing, like Arnakis does, for me is not reliable at all. I still prefer Eric Hobsbawm (everybody does).Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Uh-huh. It's not crazy given the number of Albanian states in the region of Epirus. During Ottoman times, the dominant languages of the Rum millet were Turkish and Greek. Locally, however, everyone spoke a myriad of languages. No surprise there.

2. Being an Albanian means speaking Albanian (any "Illyrian" customs by any chance?). Religion is a passing fancy. There is no emphasis on being Albanian and being Catholic or Orthodox or Bektashi.

Like I said, Arnakis talks about nationality, which to him means ethnicity also (Greeks see this as one thing: "ethnos"). Moreover, he says that religion is a preserver of ethnicity, nothing else.

Two questions. Do you deny the fact that the Souliotes never saw their language as a sign of kinship with Albanians? Can you prove that the Souliotes saw past their religion and supported their "Albanian brethren" despite whatever faith they adhered to? Deucalionite (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Fleming, one of the sources yes. According to the rest of sources they had a "regional identity", according to no source they had a Greek identity. Do you have any source to support your claim? On Arnakis, as far as I know his study is in English, so you cannot say that because in Greek nation and ethnicity has the same term, he uses nation, meaning ethnicity. That makes him totally unreliable. He says nation, you cannot assume ethnicity. He is writting in English.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone had a regional identity in the Balkans. Big deal. Also, you are exaggerating a technicality and therefore are wrong to deem Arnakis unreliable The Jelaviches brutally edited his work, so you can't say that the overall essay hasn't been peer-reviewed. Deucalionite (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If it has been peer reviewd than Arnakis speaks about nation and not ethnicity, and you cannot assume that he refers to both terms. As for language is ethnicity. Nobody said that. Historians say that Souliotes were ethnically Albanian.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He does if you read his entire essay and not just the quotes I gave you. The Western standpoint since the 19th century is to correlate language directly with ethnic identity. Not much has changed in this standpoint except for the naive romanticism. Deucalionite (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What 19th century standpoint? Hobsbawm, Hammond, Fleming, et al, what on hell have in connection with 19th century? I see just an assumption for a correlation between ethnicity and nationallity, which is not viable. Because ALL sources say that ethnically they were Albanians. And even if this book states that they were not ethnically Albanians, (which it does not), it is just one opponent opinion, on what the vast majority of the well-known historians say.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's called a "carry-over effect" if you know your sociology. By the way, take a look at these sources:

Gawrych, George Walter. The Crescent and the Eagle: Ottoman Rule, Islam and the Albanians, 1874-1913. I.B. Tauris, 2006, ISBN 1845112873, p. 103:

"The Sulliotes were Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians who lived in a region forty-five kilometers southwest of the city of Yanya. They had a reputation as fierce fighters - one of them being worth two Albanian warriors even though at the end the Albanians defeated them."

Seton-Watson, Hugh. Nations and States: An Enquiry Into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism. Taylor & Francis, 1977, ISBN 0416768105, p. 110.

"There were areas such as Suli and in southern Epirus and Mani in the southern Peloponnese which were in effect ruled by Greek tribal chieftains, who paid their tribute to the Ottoman government but were not troubled by the presence of Turkish officials."

See what I mean? Cheers. Deucalionite (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

3 months

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Report. Please avoid edit warring when your block expires, as the next one will be indefinite. yandman 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Pandora.jpg

File:Pandora.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Pandora Kylix.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Pandora Kylix.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi . Its been a while.

WOuld you mind clarifying this word for me: ήούμενοί . Does it say something like argomenoi ? What ranks is that, eg in relation to archont, who was a dependent govenor ? Hxseek (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Deucalionite! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. 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 these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 695 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. George Hourmouziadis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Aleksandra Wasowicz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aleksandra Wasowicz

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aleksandra Wasowicz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Wasowicz. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)