Talk:Lynkestis

POV-pushing in the lede
The Illyrian theory is not "alternatively" supported, and those who support an Illyrian identity are not saying they spoke Greek. Either this will stop immediately or admin intervention will be sought. Time is precious to waste with such nonsense. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Illyrian identity is not supported at all in scholarship, just 2-3 non-specialist works that simply happen to mention that name 'Lynkestae' just once. All specialist works that provide in depth analysis should stay in lede and no wonder 'all' sources that provide analysis about the language (theρε are many) simply ignore that kind of wp:FRINGE. As such removing sourced information about the language of that population (which happen to be non-Illyrian) in favor to wp:FRINGE constitutes disruption. Long story short: those 2-3 who just mention something about an Illyrian identity are not saying something else and off course nothing about language. As such that's not an excuse to remove everything about the language spoken in Lynkestes.Alexikoua (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also proposing to add the rest of Vasilev's statement in lead (Bato forgot to mention the part about the Illyrians ): . Well, Bato repeated several times that Vasilev should be used in lede and its time to add the (non)Illyrian part. Objections?Alexikoua (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE proposals by User:Alexikoua, which ignore many reliable sources, just for POV-pushing purposes. – Βατο (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bato is simply into an extreme wp:cherry campaign here by adding partial material. The so-called Illyrian link should be removed as it is not supported by 'reliable sources'. This is cited by Vasilev a source that Bato is desperately propagating in favor in this TP (though he insists on the partial inclusion of this work: no reliable sources available on the Lyncestea being considered Illyrians or Epirotes instead of Macedonians it would be childish to insists that only the Epirote link should be included in link). Objections? (please provided concrete arguments why a partial inclusion of Vasilev is warranted)Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 February 2024
Please add none to the source in the "Further reading" section (Errington 1990) to suppress the harv/sfn multiple target error. Wham2001 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

(found within the last sentence of the Macedonian rule section)
 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff):
 * Why it should be changed: "seperately" is an incorrect spelling of "separately"

Daffgatter (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)