User talk:Matia.gr/Archive 3

Please leave new message at the buttom.

Answer from User:Macedonian
Matia, I would suggest a constructive chat about the issue of Macedonia and EU. I would like to know the oppinion of a Greek person. I think we can leave our differences about the Macedonia issue for the other talk pages and use my talk page talking strictly about EU<>Macedonia issue. You are welcome to give any comments about the issue on my talk. But remeber... let's try to be constructive and have a nice chat and leave the arguing for the other talk pages. Macedonian(talk) 05:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * New comments added on my talk. Macedonian(talk)Flag of the Republic of Macedonia.svg 05:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the little chat on my talk, MATIA. I am glad I could hear some of your thoughts away from the other talk pages, which are too tensed. I hope that one day we would talk about this as a distant pass. And I hope our countries will find a way how to get out of this dispute and both be happy with the solution. Take care. Macedonian(talk) 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * New comments added on my talk. Please check. Take care, Macedonian(talk)Flag of the Republic of Macedonia.svg 14:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I answered to your post on my talk page. I am sorry for the delay, I really have a bussy period so I am not able to visit Wikipedia every day. Take care, Macedonian(talk) 02:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

a greek
Your IP is 84.254.3.47, isn't it? That's what you said above. I checked it at this webbsite http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm and I found that you are from Greece. Is that why you are taking out the truth about Albania and the Albanians? You shouldn't, I know that in Greece, they make you believe lies about Albania, but they arn't true. I am Albanian, I know about these things, I certenly know more than a greek. unsigned by


 * WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, Help:Contents. Believe it or not, I don't write lies about Albania and I've edited and expanded various Albania related articles with respect to your people. I only edit under this account, I am Greek and no this is not my IP now (but if I said it was back then, then it was - but now it isn't). +MATIA &#9742; 22:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I must have understood you wrong. Sorry. I just made a account. How do I add my name as a link and the date like you did. Lekë 22:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

with 4 ~ that is ~ or hitting the 2nd button from the left. +MATIA &#9742; 22:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

thank you, but I already did it. It was on the instructions I found about logging in. I just didn't know that that would be the reault. How do I add links to articles, make bold and italic letters? Lekë 22:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You can do experiments at the Sandbox (keep in mind that it is regularly "emptied"=deleted). Read How to edit a page and check the other buttons up there too. You may also experiment at your user page that is User:Lekë or at your talk page (User_talk:Lekë). May I revert your changes at Arvanites? +MATIA &#9742; 22:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to. Thank you for all your help and sorry for me saying you were lying. Lekë 22:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem :)
 * +MATIA &#9742; 22:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

me and Rex
I have been doing a little reading of Britannica and I found a rather interesting page: I think that it is quite inaccurate to say that Tosk and Gheg are not mutually intelligible, because accodging to this they are in their less extreme forms. That should be included in the Albanian language article, as it currently quotes Ethnologue which says that they are reported not to be intelligible. It depends on the dialect. What I want to know is if Arvanitika is intelligible to Gheg. Normally, it shouldn't be, but a less extreme form of Gheg and a less extreme form of Tosk might be intelligible, but I don't know. It also seems to be clear that Tosk and Gheg are dialects (but then we knew that all along). In my opinion Gheg sounds nicer than Tosk. It has the nasal vowels (marked with ^) which give it its characteristic French, Portuguese, Polish sound. IMO, the article Albanian language is very poor and does not conform to the standards set by WikiProject Languages. I intend to remidy this as no one seems to be bothering about that article much. Anyway, I got to go now, take care. Rex(talk) 14:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Link: The two principal dialects, Gheg in the north and Tosk in the south, are separated roughly by the Shkumbin River. Gheg and Tosk have been diverging for at least a millennium, and their less extreme forms are mutually intelligible.

Πες μου στο ταλκ πεητζ μου τι θέλεις να κάνω και θα το κάνω. Εγώ τώρα έφτιαχνα το άρθρο για την Αλβανική γλώσσα, μη σχολιάσεις το χάρτη, θα τον αλλάξουμε. Rex(talk) 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Απλά αν μπορείς, βοήθα λίγο να είναι ουδέτερο το κείμενο - λίγο κοντρόλ. Όσο έλειπες (όπως και παλιότερα) έκανα πολύ συντηρητικές αλλαγές. Τώρα είμαι ένας κι έχω κόντρα 3-4. Εκτός από τον Σκεντέρμπεη έχω ασχοληθεί με διάφορα αλβανικά άρθρα και θα ασχοληθώ και με αρκετά ακόμα - δεν έκανα πλάκα όταν σου είχα πει ότι πήγαινα σε βιβλιοθήκες. Αυτά που μου είπες ότι θες να γράψεις για την Αλβανική γλώσσα τα είχα διαπιστώσει κι εγώ ότι λείπουν, και ψάχνοντας είδα ότι είχε κάνει πολλές αξιόλογες προσθήκες και ο Θεαθήναι, οπότε υποθέτω, ότι παρά τις διαφωνίες μας και οι 3 θα συμφωνήσουμε σε κάποια πράγματα. Μόλις προλάβω, ελπίζω μέσα στη βδομάδα θα γράψω ημερομηνίες από τον Μπίρη, πότε ακριβώς το 1600 εμφανίστηκε ο όρος Σκιπετάρ κτλ. Θεωρώ πολύ καλή τη δουλειά του Μπίρη και πιστεύω ότι όταν καταφέρω να γράψω τα νούμερα θα μπορείς να τα επιβεβαιώσεις και εσύ σε άλλες πηγές (πιθανότατα και στο δίκτυο). +MATIA &#9742; 22:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Νομίζω ότι το παράκανες λίγο στο classification - μην υπερβάλλουμε. Έκανα και εγώ μερικές αλλαγές. Θέλω να παραλείψεις αυτό που λες για την "Αλβανική Οικογένεια γλωσσών", γιατί είναι σαν να λες ότι δεν υπάρχει Αλβανική γλώσσα αλλά μόνο Τοσκ, Γκέκ και Αρβερές που είναι ξεχωριστές γλώσσες. Ξέρεις ότι η Μπριτάννικα διαφωνεί. Τέλως πάντων, νομίζω ότι τώρα εντάξει είναι. Rex(talk) 22:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Προσπάθησα να το κάνω ουδέτερο. Δε θέλω να γράψω ότι δεν υπάρχει αλβανική γλώσσα - αν είναι δυνατόν! Κοίτα, οι γλωσσολόγοι γενικά χαρακτηρίζουν την αλβανική γλώσσα, από μόνη της κλάδο της Ινδοευρωπαϊκής. Οι υπόλοιποι κλάδοι έχουν οικογένειες γλωσσών. Αυτό που γράφω εγώ, και ναι το είχε γράψει παλιά ο Θ., μοιάζει σαν να είναι η Αλβανική, η Αρβανίτικη, η Τοσκική κτλ όλα μαζί στη γλωσσική οικογένεια που έχει το όνομα (επίσης) Αλβανική. Αλλά και να βρούμε Αλβανολόγους που να υποστηρίζουν ότι ισχύει για την Αλβανική κάτι παρόμοιο με τις γλώσσες και τις διαλέκτους της Ελληνικής, το πολύ πολύ να μας αφήσουν να το γράψουμε σαν γνώμη της μειοψηφίας. Τέλος πάντων. Αν νομίζεις ότι πρέπει να επεκτείνω ή να διορθώσω κάτι πες. +MATIA &#9742; 22:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί λες ότι η εικόνα του Βογδάν είναι POV. Στο pdf του ο Μπράιαν Τζόσεφ λέει ότι τα Αρβανίτικα προέχονται από την Τοσκ διάλεκτο. Rex(talk) 11:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Check User_talk:Bogdangiusca and consider that Arvanitika is the english term that BJ uses. Bogdan told me that it is according to BJ but BJ groups Arvanitika (and not Arvanitic as Bogdan wrote on his diagram) along with Tosk under the Albanian branch, and not as a subdialect of Tosk. We'll be in touch. +MATIA &#9742; 13:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen it. If you do a Yahoo search for the exact phrase "Arvanitic language" you get 7 results, whereas "Arvanitic language" gets 10 . Therefore (given that we are calling it a language) in accordance with Naming conventions (common names) the most common name (ie Arvanitic language) should be used. If we were going to copy BJ we would have said that Arvanitic is a dialect and in that case the name "Arvanitika" would be more appropriate as that yields the most results, but as we are calling it a language (in those narrow restrictions, as it is generally known as Arvanitika the Albanian dialect) Arvanitic language is more common. Also, BJ does this (check the pdf again):

Shqip Tosk < Arvanitika I'm sorry if I seem a bit too nitpicky. Take care, Rex(talk) 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying that Arvanitic preceded Tosk? Let me rephrase then modern Tosk Old Tosk < Shqip (Standard Albanian) Arvanitika Arbëreshë Tosk already existed 500 years ago. According to Britannica the division between Tosk and Gheg has existed for over 2000 years. It's just that Arvanitika resembles Old Tosk (Tosk as it was 500 years ago) more closely than modern Tosk or Standard Albanian (Shqip). You could say that Arvanitic is a branch (παρακλάδι) of Tosk which has been more conservative in preserving its characteristics than all other branches. Anyway, BJ does have that table that clearly shows that Arvanitic derives from Tosk. Gheg - Gheg ...<      Arvanitic Tosk <Arbëresh Shqip Tosk is much older that Arvanitic (BJ has that same chart). You cannot say that they are sister languages. Arvanitic is a sister language with the modern Tosk dialects and Modern Standard Albanian. Rex(talk) 23:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Check "page 4" at pdf. +MATIA &#9742; 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fir e Fo  x  RFA
 

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks! Fir e  Fo  x  18:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Archiving
I don't see anything wrong with the way he archived the page, to be honest. Is there a specific problem? Rob Church Talk 22:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He copy pasted moved it, so the archived version doesn't have the history. I think it should be move (and not copy-pasted), to preserve the history. I 've contacted not because that was a "bad" thing, but admin priviledges would be needed to undo it, and do it properly (the new page, clean history - the backed up version, with the old history). It is good to have the history in the backup. +MATIA  &#9742; 23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't copy paste it. I moved it. Rex(talk) 15:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey
After some time at the hospital I'm back. However, I won't be able to participate that much here. Glad to have you back and that you and REX have improved your conversation. You seem to have a some kind of a ironic remark on my proposal at the Macedonians (ethnic group) talk page, and I don't understand the motives behind it. My whole proposal was to do a joint review of the article, starting with the most tangible disputes (eg. the populations of ethnic Macedonians in various countries), and then going to more complex disputes. How does that sound? --FlavrSavr 15:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper
Thank you MATIA for your useful contributions on New Macedonia (newspaper) article. Bomac 17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanites
Αυτό που έγραψα για το "Σκιπτάρε" το λέει ο Κόλλιας. Μπορεί οι θεωρίες του περί Πελασγών να είναι πιθανότατα παρατραβηγμένες, αλλά γενικά θεωρείται απ΄ότι ξέρω αξιόλογος ως μελετητής των Αρβανιτών. Οπότε δεν αμφιβάλω ότι αυτό που λέει είναι αλήθεια.--Mik2 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ευχαριστώ Μικ2 :)
 * +MATIA &#9742; 19:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Bomac
MATIA, it is OK what you're saying. But don't try to compare those two things (nation and referings to you). They're absoluttely uncomparable. Other, everybody will know that these newspapers are from RoM, and not from Greek Macedonia, because everybody knows that Greek Macedonia is not a country, but a region, which can't have it's national newspapers (and it has newspapers from the country it belongs - Greece). I think that this step-of-mine is correct and true. Regards. Bomac 20:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Bomac I think you started that article, because you saw the greek one. Perhaps you don't know that I started it because User Macedonian told me that the Macedonian Press Agency and the Macedonia newspaper are too "young" (I think it was at Talk:Macedonian disambiguation). You must understand that just like your people self-describe as Mac.s there are also other people who self-describe as Mac.s. Take care. +MATIA &#9742; 20:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that other people self-describe like Macedonians (even if they are from Greece). It is their job, not mine. As I've said before, I don't want someone from outside to tell what should be my country's (I stress - we are talking about a "country" here) name, and what should my nationality be. I feel like Macedonian, from the Republic of Macedonia, and nothing else. Well, if you Greeks like so much the "Macedonia" name, rename your country with it :-))) Regards. Bomac 20:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Bomac Greeks were using that name before your people did. And there are other people, apart from Greeks and your people who use (or have used that name). Try to imagine how the Greeks feel about it. +MATIA &#9742; 21:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is the greek view. But we have other view about Macedonia. Why don't you (Greeks) try to imagine how Macedonians feel about it? Regards. Bomac 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (We want to live in peace with our southern neighbour. We've shown that many times. See the official page of the "Vreme (newspaper)" article. You will see a picture with the Greek and Macedonian flag, tied together).

What are you doing?
POV-pushing again, MATIA? I thought we had an agreement. I would not enforce the consensus on Talk:Arvanitic language if you wouldn't put those lies on Arvanites (seperate evolution for 500 years and Arvanitic sharing a common origin with Tosk). You agreed, and the article was meant to stay as it is. If you are going to violate this agreement, please let me know, so that I can initiate another poll or something. You cannot expect me to stand back, without you standing back yourself. Whe had an agreement with regard to moderation. Don't violate it. Rex(talk) 16:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? +MATIA &#9742; 18:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to stop worrying about the neutrality of the articles Arvanites and Arvanitic language. Can't we just leave them as they are. There's nothing wrong with them (except too much Greek POV). Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

REX when you were offline I did some minor changes, and when you got back you told me that you agree more or less with them. I've spent too much times in libraries for arvanites and I'd like to write what I've read, without worrying for people who deleted those paragraphs (1821 etc) and wrote that they are a minority etc. The strange thing in Greece is that groups of people who would be a minority in other countries, for example Arvanites, feel they are a majority. And the Greeks have solved the "bloodlines" thing back in 4th century bC with Isocrates. +MATIA &#9742; 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No MATIA, don't get me wrong :-) it's not what you did. It's what I thought you were going to do. That stuff about seperate evolution for 500 years and Arvanitic sharing a common origin with Tosk. That's all I object to :-) nothing else (that I can think of). Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 19:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the word Tosk means many things. (you agree that today's Tosk is different from 1900's Tosk, and sure is different from Tosk back in 1400). Please try no to think what I'll do, and comment here on my talk page what I really did, so we can work it out nicely. I'm interested in your comments and I'll wait for them here. +MATIA &#9742; 19:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you look at page four you will see clearly that Arvanitika derives from Tosk. Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 19:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

άλλος τίτλος
I hope Kwami will help us with that too. Όλα θα γίνουν :) +MATIA &#9742; 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There must be some way to say it that will make everyone happy. Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't take that as a PA on Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). I was just trying to save myself from the irrebuttable presumtion that I was somehow responsible for all Greeks rejecting mediation. I was just trying to prove that I had nothing to do with it. Their reasons were clear. Rex(talk) 20:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You try to save yourself, I try to explain myself - we must control it. I don't know what to do. I know I didn't reject it (I did propose to F. to go for Med back in August, how could I reject it?) and I know I didn't answer because I was angered with that *ists labelings. But then even F. came to my talk page and asked me if I reject Med or not? That confused me and I thought he would (or should) remember what I wrote on his talk page. I don't know... +MATIA &#9742; 21:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please check what I did, did I forget anything Special:Contributions/REX? Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ok :) I've left Rob a message. +MATIA &#9742; 21:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've rechecked them, they seem ok and I don't think you forgot anything. +MATIA &#9742; 21:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When I archived the page at Albanian language I moved [Talk:Albanian language] to [Talk:Albanian language Archive 1]. The history still exists look! I know how to archive a page. Rex(talk) 22:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case I NEED WIKIVACATIONS!!!! :D
 * +MATIA &#9742; 22:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Greeks in Albania
Thanks for the reference to the LOC source. But I don't think it adds anything new. In particular, it doesn't have a good source for the 400,000 number. I did see one reference though (I can't find it again right now, damn!) which claimed that the larger numbers included Albanian Vlachs as Greeks, because they are Orthodox -- which would of course be pushing it.... --Macrakis 20:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greek pronunciation - NPOV issue
Matia, maybe you could be of a little help in the disagreement we have about the pronunciation ot the Greek language in classical times. You might want to read the discussion page at Talk:Ancient Greek pronunciation to see what it is all about. The editors who promote the scientific view, mainly User:Macrakis, and myself, are all living outside Greece (I myself am only half Greek from my mother's side). (I am not sure about User:Miskin).Therefore, it is difficult for us to obtain Greek sources. We need these because the main NPOV issue that arises here is User:Thrax's claim that the socalled "historical Greek pronunciation" is the generally accepted theory in Greece. I personally think this is an insult to Greeks, because it implies that Greek scientists are promoting scientifically dubious theories. You will note that Thrax's point of view is backed by a single source by Caragounis, a theologist living in Sweden. His paper was published in a Spanish-language journal.

So, to make our point, we would need to find sources. Apparently, there are many Greek sources that describe the scientifically reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek. See the bibliography at Paginae philologiae, a Greek scholarly source http://www.philology.gr/bibliographies/glo_ist-glos.html If you could find somebody in Greece who is willing to go to a university library and look up these sources, it would be a great help to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia. Greetings, Andreas 17:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops I'm famous - LOL. I'll try to catch up and see what I can find. Take care. +MATIA &#9742; 17:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, our friend User:Thrax may not be particularly receptive to any sources you find. When pointed to Hatzidakis, Babiniotis (U. Athens), and Petrounias (U. Thess.), he answered "Hatzidakis was condemned by his fellow countrymen for even daring to suggest that ancient Greek could have been pronounced differently from today" and "Babiniotis who was publicly attacked in Greece for publishing a dictionary which defamed the Greek language. His views are not mainstream." And he ignores the plain meaning of Petrounias's referenced article.  I was going to enter some comments from Μπαμπινιώτη's Συνοπτική Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας (1985), but what's the point if he'll just claim he's "not mainstream" (even though he's the Prof. of linguistics at U. Athens and in fact the dean as well)? --Macrakis 22:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not a linguist, but who is mainstream if not Hatzidakis and Bambiniotis in linguistics? (and if I recall correctly B. dictionary's criticism wasn't ever about linguistics)
 * Exactly! --Macrakis 14:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll also check libraries, but this will take some time. I'm guessing Caragounis could be mentioned as a minority view (if that's the case) but I think dab made a point. +MATIA &#9742; 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See my comments on the term "Erasmian" at User talk:Ανδρέας. --Macrakis 17:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

surprised
Matia, I kind of expected your surprise. We can work together to come to a balanced article starting from the scientific position instead of from the Thrax's position. You were asking to find sources for a position nearer to Caragounis's and I incorporated those found by Lucas. Regarding the Greek position, we would need something about Th. Dimitrakopoulos mentioned in the encycloipedia article you sent me. Also, what is written in Greek secondary school books. Andreas 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC) My primary goal here was to counteract Thrax's distortion of scientific evidence. I admit that I also diagree with some of your opinions, but your effort to provide a neutral POV is appreciated. If you could make some contributions based on sources idependent of the article by Caragounis, they would be welcome. Andreas 21:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC) We still agree on the main points, namely, that the recostructed pron. according to Allen is the main view, also among Greek scholars. I think that the point where we disagree is what weight should be given to opinions similar to Caragounis's. Andreas 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

notes from the web
Kalvos, 1, 2, Hadjidakis, Vox Graeca ISBN 0521335558  toc, 2004, προφόρα και προσωδία, Johann Reuchlin, Erasmus,

Comment on my talk page.
Thanks for notifying me. Ral315 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You are on a personal attack parole
Hi MATIA, as of 22:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC) you are on a permanant personal attack parole. See Requests for arbitration/REX. Rex(talk) 23:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed 1 that. +MATIA &#9742; 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Aye, so? I don't enjoy harrassment. You said "ask for clarifications". I need no clarifiactions. Rex(talk) 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you don't enjoy harrassment don't harrass me. +MATIA &#9742; 23:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry if you took it that way. Rex(talk) 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * +MATIA &#9742; 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * +MATIA &#9742; 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

invitation
The Macedonians (ethnic group) article has been unlocked and the MacSlavs are running wild. I need support to hold them back. Coming? VMORO 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the hard part won't be to hold them back but to convince the admins to make it NPOV. This and the related articles give me too much wikistress and I'll probably take a break, but I'll keep my eyes on these. +MATIA &#9742; 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Pater Noster PIE
ΜΑΤΙΑ, κοίτα αυτό. Είναι το Πάτερ ημών στη λεγόμενη Πρώτο-Ινδοευρωπαική Γλώσσα. Ενδιαφέρον (υποθέσεις είναι βέβαια). Rex(talk) 00:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ενδιαφέρον μα και εντελώς ακατανόητο :) +MATIA &#9742; 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Scanderbeg
You were right! Skenderbed was partly Serbian (sorry that I didn't believe you) HolyRomanEmperor 11:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said he was many things. And he is also (or should I say most of all) an albanian national hero. It's like the article about Nicola Tesla, I don't know what is happening today in that wiki, but for a long time people went there and changed the phrases about his origin :) +MATIA &#9742; 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would add that he was also a fighter for protection of the normal people from the Ottomans, regardless their nationality. I can confirm that the Macedonians also regard him as a hero and we study about him during our primary and secondary education.
 * There is an ongoing process of building a big monument of this guy in Skopje. Macedonian(talk)Flag of the Republic of Macedonia.svg 02:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Signature Issues
Please see Village_pump_%28technical%29, you might see something useful there. Thanks, FireFox ™ 14:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Tesla etc
Well, can hard evidence be found so that we can include the full version of Skender-beg's life? (P.S. what did you mean about Nikola Tesla?) HolyRomanEmperor 16:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt that "hard evidence" for Scanderbeg can be found (perhaps at Barletti's work but I don't have access to that book).
 * Now the article says "Nikola Tesla was of Serbian descent". In the past the word "Serbian" was changed and there are long discussions at Talk:Nikola Tesla about Tesla's origins. +MATIA &#9742; 19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to know what is tought in Greece (and your personal opinion) Did the Serbs get their name directly from the Greek language as slaves, or is the name purely Serbian or something else? HolyRomanEmperor 16:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The greek word for slave is sklavos. If (or when) I find anything about the name Serbs I'll get back to you. (see also: Serbs the sections name and history) +MATIA &#9742; 19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting:
 * Thanks for letting me know. +MATIA &#9742; 19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

καλησπέρα
Αγαπητή Matia.gr,

Αρχικά, συγνώμη που είχα λείψει από το Wikipedia για μήνες και δεν απάντησα στη μήνυμα.

Σήμερα, πιστεύω πως ίσως αυτό το 5% γίνει 15-20% :-)΄

Σε ευχαριστώ για τη συμπαράσταση! --Odysses 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In lucem prodiit
You are rigyht, in reanissance latin it means print, i tought it was a classical latin text, thinkin that at the time there was no printer, thanks for the correction. Philx Philx 13:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :)
 * +MATIA &#9742; 13:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greek pronunciation
Matia, thanks for joining the discussion. I think if you read the Talk page from the beginning, you will find that Thrax has been repeating himself over and over and over, and not responding constructively to other editors' comments, and not accepting clear evidence they present. It's been shown clearly that professors at Athens (Babiniotis) and Thessaloniki (Petrounias) reconstruct b/d/g and pH/tH/gH not v/δ/γ and f/θ/χ (that's IPA, not Greek!), so what does he do? After first grossly misinterpreting their evidence, he then accuses them of being controversial or not mainstream. But what could be a better representation of the "mainstream" Greek view than professors at Athens and Thessaloniki? Of course, we're not talking about what the man in the street thinks.... He has found just one source (and not a very good one), Caragounis, and has just been repeating the Caragounis line over and over and over. As for Reuchlin, did he email you about him? He never mentioned him in Talk; you did. Anyway, both Erasmus and Reuchlin were 500 years ago, and we're not discussing in this article what is taught in schools (there is now a separate article for that), but what the current position is among qualified linguistic scholars. In summary, Thrax is acting like a disruptive, unrepentant POV-pusher, and has been for a long time, despite many editors trying to reason with him. --Macrakis 18:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have email contact with you, Andreas, or Thrax. I 've found Reuchlin at November 14. Do you think that Erasmus and Reuchlin are relevant to Ancient Greek phonology? By the way, I'm trying to reason Thrax, and I didn't expected that you would remove the refference to Babiniotis about mediae (which as I said before might not be relevant, and I've added it hoping that someone would check it). +MATIA &#9742; 18:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand why you sayd that Thrax was right about Reuchlin; I don't think he brought him up at all. Erasmus and Reuchlin are very relevant to the history of the study of Greek phonology, just as Ptolemy and Copernicus are relevant to the history of astronomy.  Erasmus is also relevant today because one speaks of the "Erasmian" pronunciation used in teaching ancient Greek.
 * I don't think that Thrax knew about Reuchlin (but he was right, or partialy right, about Germany). I'll add a passage from Eleftheroudakis in the talk page as soon as I can. I thought that at the phonology article we would deal with these, what am I missing? +MATIA &#9742; 20:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Many of us have tried to reason with Thrax, with no success. Good luck!
 * About the Babiniotis reference to mediae, as I say, that is a very specialized study, and moreover none of us has read it, so it can't really be used as evidence. You might want to add it instead to the Talk page in a section of "Some articles to look up"....  I don't see that it belongs in the main article. --Macrakis 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm that's a better idea. +MATIA &#9742; 20:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, about the ton-patera > tombatera / tonbatera, this is a classic example of phonological processes that aren't perceived by speakers, just as in English, very few speakers are aware that the 'p' of 'pin' is aspirated and the 'p' of 'spin' is not. Also, of course, there are dialect and formality differences. One of the problems in studying phenomena like this is that if you ask speakers to pronounce something slowly and carefully, they will actually pronounce it differently. --Macrakis 18:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I'm a greek speaker, I've tried it many times today and I think that I don't say tompatera or tombatera, but ton_patera (that means I suppose n+p might sound like mp/mb in one word, but not in two seperated words). I think I understand the pin-spin example better than "ton patera" :) +MATIA &#9742; 18:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am a Greek speaker, too, and have spent a lot of time in Greece. I have also studied a variety of languages which have different phonetics than English or Greek or French (my primary languages).  It is hard to hear phenomena which are not phonemic in your own language.  For example, most Greek-speakers I know who learn Italian think that Italian has the same vowels as Greek, but in fact most (but not all) dialects of Italian have an open/closed distinction for /e/ and /o/, so there are 7 vowels, not 5 as in Greek. --Macrakis 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

α ε η ι ο υ ω are 7 vowels and until 1981, the usage of polytonic allowed (or actually made clear) the usage of δασεία and ψιλή, and μακρά or βραχεία pronunciation of greek letters. +MATIA &#9742; 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

In linguistics, when we say "vowels", we mean vowel sounds. Modern Greek has 7 vowel letters, but only 5 vowel sounds (though many more spellings!). Ancient Greek had the same 7 vowel letters, but more vowel sounds and, as you know, some of them did not have their own letters (long and short α, ι, υ). --Macrakis 21:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We will have at least one more Latin translation after the weekend by User:Existent80. Andreas 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Perhaps the translators should focus on certain phrases that are (or might be) disputed instead of translating it from scratch. +MATIA &#9742; 23:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct translation
the most correct of all translation is that done by Muke, if you want my opinion, i think we should consider that as a reference i will correct my translation soon as possible. F.S.S.D Philx Philx 13:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's nice, thanks for letting me know. +MATIA &#9742; 13:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Alex McDowell
Well if you are planning to expand the article in the short term you could use Template:Inuse. Someone already appears to be haveing a word with Zunaid. While their contirbution history is a little odd I'm not concernded enough to do anything about it at this time. If you think differenty try leaveing a note on WP:AN/I.Geni 14:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. I'll keep in my mind WP:ANI and I hope that this one was an isolated incident. I've added stub-tag instead of inuse because I thought that other people might be able to contribute about him. On the other hand the production designer wiki has what I already knew about them (and probably all needed to describe their work) but it's a small one (and I can't expand it). Thank you again. +MATIA  &#9742; 14:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA, and the compliment. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 09:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Geldart book
Hi, I was wondering why you added the Geldart book The Modern Greek Language in its Relation to Ancient Greek to the Ancient Greek phonology article. This is an 1870 book promoting the study of modern Greek (no doubt a good thing), but I don't know much else about it. I did find a summary on a Web site saying "Spectacular attempt to prove Tsakonian is a Jewish language." Doesn't seem like a very useful or solid source. Have you read it? Is it reliable? Is it cited by modern authors? Does it contribute anything useful? --Macrakis 17:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've glanced some pages of that book that discuss about letters and pronunciation. I'll get back to you with details later. Take care! +MATIA &#9742; 18:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

On Romaions
Ok Matia, I'll do as you said with pleasure, especially since I hate quarrels, so you're message was a sort of liberation ;-) BTW, since I still haven't told you, I was really enthusiastic when Names of the Greeks became a feature article. Continue the good work, all of you! :-) Aldux 23:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I always enjoy talking and working with you Aldux :) I had left a note to Deucalionite's talk page, and while I think that the page needs a (partial) revert, I 'll wait for a little bit. +MATIA &#9742; 23:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: "vandalism"
Well, maybe vandalism is a strong word for it, but that was a direct personal attack at the people discussed in the article. Now unfortunately the guideline Remove personal attacks is not clear enough on how to remove personal attcaks of this nature, but I probable should have made clear that I removed something, probably by using brackets. I do not think that my calling it vandalism was a personal attack - they are defined at WP:PA. That was a bad faith edit from whoever added that and it was intended to start a flame war - if I had left it, sooner or later, someone would take offence and then the dispute would be harder to resolve. Izehar 12:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried to tell you that your edit summary was a worst personal attack (the anonymous said "I'm the true macedonia" and I keep hearing these from both sides, you called him vandal and propagandist...) Bad faith edit in Main not in Talk (Talk is good enough for personal opinions, the rules you are thinking about apply to articles). Take care. +MATIA &#9742; 12:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a comment on content rather than the contributer - maybe you should reconsider your definition of a personal attack (see WP:PA). Izehar 12:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have the wrong idea - read Avoid personal remarks, it'll give you a better idea. Calling a person something (including a troll) is a personal attack; criticising edit content is not a personal attack, as it is directed at the edit, not the editor. How can it be personal then? If you disagree with me, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Take a personal user award as a token of my appreciation. I know you mean well, and I know that I shouldn't have used the word "vandalism" in my edit summary, but it looked like vandalism to me at the time; like football slogans painted all over the metro (graffiti). According to Avoid personal remarks:
 * If you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there &mdash; or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia prospers on people working together toward improving articles. Anything else – especially attacks directed specifically at users – detracts from the wonderful thing that we are creating here.

I may be wrong, but I cannot find anywhere (in any policy) that criticising content can amount to a personal attack. Izehar 14:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks (Romaions)
For easy reference:

''That article was a featured article. That means it was recognised as a high quality article and I think we should be carefull when we add information in such an article (aka even if your changes are 100% correct, we should make sure that they follow the quality - not in the content, but in the appearance - of the rest article). I also believe that it is a good idea to read carefully the talk page. Having said these, I can tell you that a) I haven't seen the terms "Romaions" before and the links you provided do not use that term (Ρωμαίοι & Ρωμιοί that were used in Greek are Romans & Romioi in English) b) they didn't use the term Ρωμαίοι to avoid the term Έλληνες (the external links and the talk page has some info about it, your comments on ref39 aren't good for main but rather for a talk page). Κι αν θες συγκεκριμένα παραδείγματα δες τους Παλαιολόγους και άλλες δυναστείες που υπέγραφαν εμπορικές συμφωνίες ως αυτοκρατορία Ρωμαίων και Ελλήνων, δηλαδή από ένα σημείο και μετά, στην Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή αυτοκρατορία (Βυζάντιο) οι δυο έννοιες είχαν ταυτιστεί (υποθέτω μπορείς να διαβάσεις ελληνικά, αν όχι συγνώμη θα τα μεταφράσω).''

Yes. I can read Greek and I understand your position clearly. Thank you for being honest. Yet, the sources I placed (albeit not good ones I agree) do refer to the existence of a Romaic identity and not just a Roman identity. Aldux stated that what is important in the articles I edited (Names of the Greeks and Byzantine Empire) is historiography. Personally, "historiography" has led many in Western European scholarship to deem the Byzantine Empire as a "collapsing civilization" since its birth. Even if one were to deem the Eastern Roman Empire as Greco-Roman, it does not change the fact that the majority of its inhabitants were Greeks and that the Greeks had a specific name that they used to refer to themselves at the time.

To be honest, I prefer social analysis rather than historiography. The Greek mentality is of the utmost importance in better understanding how the Greeks perceived themselves throughout their history. The Greek mentality was, and has always been, dualistic. In the case of the medieval Greeks, they called themselves "Romioi" (and I don't care if the English language has never seen the word "Romioi" for it does not change the fact that that is what the Greeks called themselves during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages). The question is, why? The reason why the Greeks called themselves "Romioi" was because they maintained their citizenship as Romans, but at the same time they did not want to forsake their own Hellenic roots. Even though the meaning of the term "Hellene" meant "pagan" at the time, its other meanings (an ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic Greek) were merely transferred into the new word "Romios." So, "Romios" came to mean "a Roman citizen of Greek descent and follower of Eastern Orthodox Christianity." See the dualism? I am sure you already know this, but others unfortunately do not understand this.

I am very glad that you cited evidence to counter what I am trying to place into the articles. However, in a social analysis study one needs to distinugish the difference between people in a political adminstration and people who are outside of a political administration. I am sure you already know that Eastern Roman imperial politics were very complex and secretive (to an extent). Now, why would some (or even many) Byzantine officials want to deem their empire as just Roman or their citizens as simply Romans? To put things in their proper social and political context, Byzantine officials were mainly focused on how to best increase or consolidate the sphere of influence (whether directly or indirectly) of the Eastern Roman Empire. Using the phrase "Empire of the Romans" instead of "Empire of the Greco-Romans" or "Empire of the Romioi" shows that Byzantine officials wanted to offset foreign imperial plans of expansion into Roman and ex-Roman territories (in a sense, to make foreign empires still think that the Byzantines were just like the very powerful old Romans capable of defeating armies and maintaining territories for vast periods of time). Moreover, it was a phrase that had prestige at the time even though the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. Constantinople was the new Rome of the time and the officials were simply taking a bath in all of the glory. The Byzantine officials would use the phrase to either follow in old Roman traditions or to simply maintain an aura of power that would emanate beyond Byzantine territories. To put it simply, the officials could care less what name they used just as long as it served their political, economic, and social agendas.

Byzantine officials state, for instance, that the citizens of the Byzantine Empire are just Romans. Just because it is official or because there was an official Byzantine consensus on the matter, does that make it true? Not really. The Greeks were aware of who they were and called themselves Romioi even though their officials still preferred to call the Greeks "Romans." Now, you find yourself in the time of Heraclius' administration. Heraclius made the administrators use Greek instead of Latin, but that did not automatically lead to Greeks speaking Greek instead of Latin. Greeks were speaking Greek (and Latin too, to an extent, since both languages are not exactly linguistically distant) before Heraclius was crowned emperor in 610 A.D.

Look, I have no intention of causing needless trouble. However, I am for historical accuracy and even if that accuracy leads to the sacrificing of article aesthetics, then it is for the better. Better educating people about history when they use the Internet is a more important cause than merely focusing one's energies on making articles look pretty. Even though aesthetics are important, it should come second to historical accuracy. I may be wrong in what I have written, but I am not wrong in my statements pertaining to the Greek mentality of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Sorry to have written so much, but I tend to make sure nothing is left out when I discuss about something serious. Again, sorry. Respond at your best convenience. Later.

- Deucalionite 11/28/05 12:54 P.M. EST

Thanks for the welcome
Hi Matia,

thanks for your words of welcome. As for your request for comments, I suppose you meant the part where you asked what other respectable sources would support the traditional-Greek position? Well, I know none that radical. The most strongly revisionist of the linguistic treatments I know is the one by Teodorsson, which meets Caragounis' position about halfway on some issues, but not on others. Of course, there are other authors on the nationalist fringe in Greece, but that's really a different kettle of fish.--Lukas 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The majority view among greek scientists is in favor of the reconstructed system. You may read my previous comments on the related article's talk page. Thanks :) +MATIA &#9742; 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Question
Hi Matia, can I ask you a question? What does each of the following words mean: Εβραιος, Ιουδαιος, Ισραηλινος, Ισραηλιτης. I'm suspecting that they mean: Hebrew, Jew, Israeli, Israelite. That all may be true, but in Greek, the word Εβραιος seems to be used to mean Jew, and not Ιουδαιος. Is that so (it is in Italian)? Izehar 22:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ιουδαίος derives from Ιουδαία (Judae) and probably means the follower of Judaism (but in some historical texts Judaeos means someone from Judae). I'm unsure for the english spelling. (hm, just checked Jew, Jew is related to the greek word Ioudaios).

Εβραίος, Ισραηλίτης, Ιουδαίος and Ισραηλινός are used to refer to Jew people, and if I'm not mistaken the most common terms are Ισραηλίτης and Εβραίος. The language is called (sometimes or usually?) Εβραϊκά (New Testament Greek: εβραϊστί means "in Hebrew language").

I think you are right about Israeli (Ισραηλινός) and Israelite (Ισραηλίτης) but I'm not absolutely sure. I've just noticed that Israeli redirects to Israel (greek: Ισραήλ).

Hope these help :) +MATIA &#9742; 23:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you've helped me out a lot. The words Ισραηλίτης, Ιουδαίος and Εβραίος are all used in the Septuagint (not that I can understand much of it). The difference between Israelite and Israeli is that the former refers to the Ancient people, and the latter to the modern State of Israel - I was just wondering if that distinction applied in Greek. Anyway, thanks again. Καληνύχτα - לילה טוב. Izehar 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

PS I'm sure that the most famous pars of the Septuagint in Greece are the Δέκα εντολαί. Izehar 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In that case Israeli and Israel are Ισραήλ in greek (modern state name and Septuagint term). The english Israelite is Ισραηλίτης and Ισραηλινός in greek and I think that they are also used to refer to modern and ancient content. Goodnight. +MATIA &#9742; 23:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

About the link
About the link you gave me, it seems to be an ancient greek text dealing at erasmus, but i've looked upon it briefly, maybe coulde be katareousa greeki, i have to ransalte it? F.S.S.D Philx 12:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's in katharevousa (I assumed you could read greek) and it's from a respected (something like Lidel Scott in dictionaries - among the greek encyclopedias of course) greek encyclopedia (Eleftheroudakis, 1962). It covers, sometimes briefly, the problems we had in the related article, and I had posted a link in talk:ancient greek pronunciation, so that the editors involved could get a better idea of the "big picture". If you can read greek, take a look at it, and let me know if you believe it's NPOV. (note: I'll be back in a few days after a wikibreak). +MATIA &#9742; 13:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't do that i can read only ancient greek texts and even if katherevusa is similiar to0 ancient greek i haven't the proper skill to red it. F.S.S.D Philx 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Matia,

I'm Bonaparte. Glad to know you, I just wanted to know you. By the way there is no other country that I've visited in which to feel like home but Greece. You are like us or we are like you, for the moment I cann't figure out. All the best, Bonaparte   talk  &amp;  contribs  22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello; I want to be a mediator that will force you and User:Macedonian to stop fighting over nonsence. Macedonian sounds really like a nice person, and so do you. From my cosmopolitan POV, I respect everyone. And in here, both Greeks and Macedonians are of high respect... HolyRomanEmperor 12:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexander for Admin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007. I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte  talk  &amp;  contribs  13:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please go an vote for Alexander. -- Bonaparte  talk  15:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Our little friend Bomac...
See the newest invention of our little friend Bomac:. VMORO 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubrovnik/Ragusa
I need some sources on the Republic of Dubrovnik. Since you're in Greece (Byzantine Empire stuff...), I think that you have the most available sources at your disposal. Care to help me? HolyRomanEmperor 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)