User talk:Kcmamu

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Cyril etc
Xenovatis (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) You are commiting the fallacy of the middle ground in labeling two positions as "extreme" and asserting that therefore a synhtesis of the two must be superior.
 * (b) You are using one source to claim they were Bulgarians without quoting page number and including the relevant passage. "Early Slavs" was written by someone working in Poland, in the Polish academic esteblishment so his views are not free from bias. In that case there are hundreads of academics working in Greece, Bulgaria etc whose diametrically opposed opinions we should include. At any rate the overwhelming majority of the international sources label them as Greek. WP should reflect scientific opinion not shape it.
 * (c) I have proposed a merge of the two separate articles into the one on both of them. Pleae state your opion.


 * (a) False. Those "therefore" and "superior" are just your misinterpretations. If you do not like the word "extremities", please propose another variant.
 * (b) False. I do not claim that they are Bulgarians. I simply refer to the medieval source of this version (with quoting page numbers and including relevant piece of text -- yes, just three words, but it is enough for the purposes of the subject). I have no idea what the "Early Slavs" is (Google says that the author is a British archeologist; also, the Catholic Poland is rather neutral side in any Cyrilo-Methodian dispute). I'm telling about Ангелов's book. It is not an "academic establishment" interpretation, it is a collection of primary sources. Also, I gave the reference to the Greek point of view (work of Tachiaos), and the reference to the work that contains pros and contras of all versions (Флоря's book). Why do you prefer to ignore all this information? Theories do exist, and they are not marginal!
 * (c) Which article is the second of "both"? St. Cyril? What about St. Methodius as well?
 * Conclusion: I'll undo your last changes, and update reference to the Barford's book (using information from amazon.con). Your proposition (c) sounds reasonable. -- Kcmamu (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Transfering this discussion to Talk:Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius. Please see there. Xenovatis (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you please go back to your comments on talk and assemble them in one block. That would help others follow the discussion as well and would also make it easier to keep it structured. I will number my points so that you won't have to quote. Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote Request
Hi Kcmamu, I wanted to ask if you could vote on the subject of merging the three poor articles into one that can be tidied up, this would also make it easier to contain drive-by edits. Thanks for your reply. Xenovatis (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Cyril#MERGE

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)