User talk:MANOS/trash

Macedonian Slavs

Please don't remove entire sections from articles without talking about it in the talk page. Thanks :) Project2501a 17:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted them because they were full of propagandistic material. But now I see that 2 of the links seems OK. Except if someone add them after the day I del the section. But the rest 3 were full of propagandistic material. 1 of them even claimed that the Macedonian Slavs, aren't Slavs!!! I del these 3 links now. ;)

MANOS

Poll

There is a poll in the talk page of the Macedonian Slavs article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story .I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

Block

I'm very sorry; someone had accused you of violating 3RR. However, after I issued a block, another user pointed out that one of the four diffs provided was an edit, not a revert. Apologies for any trouble, and please notify me if you have any questions. Thanks, Sango123 20:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I initially blocked you for 24 hours for supposedly violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. When the evidence I based that block on turned out to be faulty, I immediately unblocked you. Again, I apologize. Sango123 20:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a new administrator and am bound to make mistakes. Please don't let any editor prevent you from contributing; I'm very, very sorry, I really am. I was not aware of the situation at Ancient Macedonian language, and I would not have blocked you if I had known better. We honestly value your contributions, and I regret any difficulties you have experienced. Is there any way I can help? Regards, Sango123 20:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian language

Hi, MANOS. I'm not as knowledgeable as you are in this subject, but your argument here is convincing. Of course, I haven't heard the other side of the argument, so do you think it would be appropriate to copy your message (modified a bit) from my talk page to Talk:Ancient Macedonian language and politely ask other editors for their sources? Sango123 00:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thesis

Okay, I think this is what you should post:

If u don't prove in 48 hours that I'm wrong and your thesis is correct, then the article will be changed.

So here is my thesis about ancient Macedonian language:

(1) The lexicon of Hesychius is a Greek lexicon:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]

(2) The article mentions the following:

{ Due to the fragmentary attestation widely diverging interpretations are possible. The suggested historical interpretations of Macedonian include (Mallory and Adams (1997), p. 361):

a Greek dialect mixed with Illyrian languages.
a Greek dialect mixed with Illyrian and the Thracian language.
a Greek dialect with a non-Indo-European substratal influence
an Illyrian dialect mixed with Greek
an independent Indo-European language close to Greek, Thracian and Phrygian languages.
The discussion is closely related to the reconstruction of the Proto-Greek language.
}

How did u came in that conclusion? I guess that because the origin of a few words were non-Greek, u assumed that the words were non-Greek, too. So the language was non Greek.

In that way, "bibliotheka" is a Greek word, because its origin is Greek and the English language is Greek language too, because "bibliotheka" as u know is an English word. But if u open a Greek lexicon u won't find that word. On the other hand, u will find it in an English lexicon. So obviously u can't claim that the ancient Macedonian language was non-Greek. The lexicon was Greek. So the Macedonian is a Greek dialect.

Also u can't claim that the language was mixed with foreign languages. The number of the survived Macedonian words from the Greek lexicon of Hesychius is too small (around 700 words) and the most of them have Greek origin. So we can not made such conclusions about the language.

(3) The Hesychius of Alexandria article states that "Hesychius of Alexandria, a grammarian of Alexandria, (probably flourished 5th century CE) compiled the richest lexicon of unusual and obscure Greek words that has survived".

So according to u although that the words were Greek, the Macedonian language was non-Greek. But how is that possible? Is there any other x language that is constructed by non-x words?

(Conclusion) It was a Greek lexicon, which means that the ancient Macedonian language was a Greek dialect. So we should change the article. If you can't prove me wrong within 48 hours, then I will change the article.

What do you think? Sango123 13:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you leave the admin's support out because it could make others feel that the argument might be tipped in your favor. Besides, your thesis is already effective, I have next to no experience in this subject matter, and I choose to remain neutral in this discussion. Sango123 13:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be there to support you if others don't take you seriously. However, Wikipedia is not a forum; since this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, talk pages are used for communication between editors. If there is a dispute, civil discussion can be very useful. Thanks, Sango123 14:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC) (Oh, and please tell me when you post it.)

I added the heading Thesis for change. Let's see what the others think. Regards, Sango123 14:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to change the numbers of Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs in Greece but only if you can back your edits up with a valid source. But removing links can be controversial. How about adding your own? Sango123 14:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't have my support; if you don't get a satisfactory answer within the time limit you set, I can't endorse any action you take, since I don't endorse your thesis. Thanks for your understanding, Sango123 19:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Manos, your understanding of the issue is obviously quite limited. You make up for that by militance. But you do not need either knowledge or militance, Wikipedia will simply just consider published scholarly opinion. See Wikipedia:cite your sources. So if you'll just point to journal articles or monographs, we will mention any opinion you like. Note that the xmk article is extremely well referenced already, it has evolved into this state by a long string of outspoken editors with modest background knowledge like you. Cite sources or let it be, it's the only game in town. Your Hesychius argument is extremely naive. At best you could imply that Hes. thought xmk was Greek, if you cite a passage implying as much from the epistle to Eulogius. I won't review that for you. Go and read it, and if you find something conclusive, we might mention something about Hesychius' position, although such an information would proably at home in Hes.' article, and not on xmk. Also, define "Greek". Not your private definition, of course, cite the accepted linguistic definition of "Greek language". If you cannot, go to a library, or read (don't edit) Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that u are going to explain me why Macedons might not speak Greek although:
Hesiod said they were Greeks.
Hellanicus said they were Greeks.
Both said they were speaking Greek (Aeolian)
Macedons said they were Greeks
The rest Greeks said they were Greeks
They were participating in Olympic Games
Persians said they were Greeks
Not a single evidence proving the opposite

Could u plz tell me why? MANOS

Come on. Daylight us with ur knowledge. ;)
MANOS

Hey, MANOS. What changes do you plan to make to the article? According to Dbachmann, "All pertinent scholarly opinions will be cited. In this case, user wanted to remove attributed opinions, which will be unacceptable in any case, 'thesis' or no 'thesis'." If you can add accurate, cited information without removing viewpoints that oppose yours, then please, by all means, do so. Sango123 20:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I've left a note on VMORO's talk page asking why he reverted your cited edit.)

Right now I want to write in the ancient Macedonian language article, that the Macedonian language was a Greek dialect and to remove all the opposite opinions.
Do u want to give u the name of each scholar (the most famous of course) who believes that Macedonians were Greeks and their language was a Greek dialect or do u accept the historical evidence of Hesiod and Hellanicus, who said that Macedonians and their language was Greek (and links of course proving that)?
MANOS

I'm tired. I don't care if u change it or not. I really don't care. I just wanted to help ppl find out the truth. Do whatever u want. I waste my Saturday. I wont waste another day that's for sure. Do whatever u want. Next time I'll contribute for articles that is 100% sure that wont cause a flame (Sports, movies etc.). ;)

Have a nice day,
MANOS

No personal attacks

I have warned you on Talk:Ancient Macedonian language due to your attacks on Dab. I am only adding it here as well for the record. Next time you will be blocked.--Wiglaf 09:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

For instance writing Are u playing the stupid or are u stupid? is a personal attack. Moreover, calling someone propagandist or a man that doesn't want to know the truth is also a personal attack. Please comment on content. You don't know Dab, but he is a knowledgeable and serious contributor who has no nationalistic feelings in this matter. If you want to ask someone who is neutral, knowledgeable and who can consult sources in this matter, you should ask Dab.--Wiglaf 10:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read Dab's comments, and it concerned your actions and the content, not your personal qualities. I do not see anything else targeted directly at you.--Wiglaf 10:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He called me child, vandal, straw man and maybe more. He even insult me by telling me to educate myself. That are insults.
HELLO.
Read my posts. Each time I posted smth, I asked from the other to explain me their thesis. Did they explain it? NO. Why? Because they can't and they know that if they even post 1 "evidence" to prove me wrong, I'll prove that their evidence is 100% supporting my thesis and then in order to save the situation they would have to post another one. Or to start calling me names. For this reason they don't even bother to answer.
See how many times I ask them to support their thesis. Instead to support what they are saying, they told me to stop talking and that I'm vandal and a child.
If u believe that dab is so good, why don't u convince him to support his thesis? He didn't even tried.
As I said before, this is not an encyclopedia, but a forum.
MANOS

This is far from a forum. Ryan 10:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I can't even post the truth. When I ask to support the articles, they are saying... "we don;t need to support. Scholars said that".
OK then. Scholars said a lot of things. Why they don't post that Macedons are Chinese? I wonder why? If this is not a forum then what is it?
I can't even post data from official census!!! I guess that aren't reliable for this "encyclopedia"
MANOS

This is an encyclopedia, where the texts are edit through consensus. You cannot add YOUR truth into the article, but you should cite sources for everything that people might dispute.--Wiglaf 10:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is not only my truth. Is the truth of all the historical evidence. Even scholars support it. Not only scholars but even wikipedia's Macedon article. But dab can't understand this.
BTW, why should I post my sources? I want dab to post his sources. And specifically I want the sources who are explaining the 7 facts I post in the talk page.
I ask for this because it's obvious that the whole article is a big fat lie. I prove in the talk page, than no one can support that the Macedons language wasn't Greek with linguistics. It's impossible.
I want to see dab posting at least 1 evidence, who will support that Macedon's weren't Greek. Right now the article of Macedon and the article of the Ancient Macedonian language are arguing each other!
So here ur evidense that Wikipedia isn't encylopedia, but a forum. Encyclopedia's articles are supporting each otehr. Not like in this web site that happens the opposite.
MANOS

These ppl are trying to make all the ancient historians liars and fools. Hesiod, Herodotus, Hellanicus even the Macedons themselves said that they were Greeks. Said that they speak Greek. What is the explanation of this ancient historical fact according to Dab? So don't tell me that this is encyclopedia if it can not support it's owns articles.
MANOS

As I said "their theories" and "their scholars" can "explain" a minor number of ancient evidence. The rest can not been explained with their theories. On the other hand my thesis can explain it. "My scholars" can explain it. For this reason I believe it. For this reason I shout that is the TRUTH and the only truth.
MANOS