User talk:LukasPietsch

; Archives
	November 2005 – February 2006; – 8 April 2006; ; ;

User:Zora

While I appreciate your concern, as far as I can see things, there is no other way to handle the situation at the current moment. The simple fact is that there is a good deal of incivility going on in these debates, and it must be dealt with accordingly. It doesn't have to be me, but whoever it is, we can't just allow wikipedia users to do whatever they please, especially when it's this widespread, and over such a controversial topic. A month ago, the only time many of these users stopped throwing racial slurs at each other was when they were blocked for 3RR violation. Now, while I'm not sure if it's really making that much of a difference, at least there is some sane debate going on. I certainly don't plan to do this forever; that would imply that nothing will change. I've told these users that I don't know anything about the content disputes they're in, so I'm not even getting involved there; I'm just sticking around until everyone's playing nice here. I don't believe I've been overly strict; many of these users have been warned about these things a dozen times or more, and most just shrug them off. Of COURSE there's ethnic/nationalistic bias coming from many of these users, but that doesn't make it right to throw the terms around. If someone truly cannot make neutral edits, how is accusing them of that fact going to do any good? No, that's more a matter left up to an RfC or an RfA, if need be. Otherwise, it's just an accusation, which I still see as a personal attack (as, again, it concerns the user, and not the edits they are making). Don't you agree it would be much more productive to simply say what's wrong with another user's edits? Because that's what I'm trying to stress to all these users; it's wikipedia policy, and I believe it's the only chance these debates have of simmering down. These users have to stop trying to figure out what's behind everyone else's screenname and start focusing on contributions and contributions alone. Anyway, while I welcome your input, I haven't changed my stance twords Zora's comment, and will reafirm that stance shortly to them, so there is no confusion. --InShaneee 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of intentions, the simple fact is that it's innapropriate to discuss another user in just about any form. Even if it's well meaning, it's all too easy to misinterprit, which is why Wikipedia asks that you just avoid it altogether. --InShaneee 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minio and Mazaris Articles

Oule, Ave, and Hello again my friend. I appreciate the compliment for the updates I have provided for the Minio article. Just so you know, I based the updates off of the first chapter of Wright's work. I must thank you for providing the source and adding it to the overall article. Of course, the Minio article is still incomplete. If there is anything wrong with the article as it is currently, then I expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to make the necessary corrections/additions.

I am elated to hear that you managed to acquire Mazaris' work Journey to Hades. If you did not find anything pertaining to the differences between Albanians and Arvanites, then update the article as you see fit. However, for every update you provide, please provide a quote from the work in Greek (or in translated English if the Greek quotes in the work are not available).

As for Mazaris' first name, I will try to see if I can verify it for you. As I said before, there is not a lot of information on the Internet pertaining to the life and times of Mazaris. In the end, if I fail to provide clear confirmation of Mazaris' first name, then I expect you to change the name title of the article from "Maximus Mazaris" to just "Mazaris" (if you can). In all honesty, I am not worried about how the name of the article will pan out in the end. All I want is to see Mazaris have his proper place in the archives of Wikipedia and on the Internet in general.

Would you be so kind as to tell me where you managed to find Mazaris' work? I am asking only because I want to see if I can access this tome and learn for myself about what Mazaris stated about the populations in the Peloponnese. If you cannot remember, then do not worry about it. I agree, for the most part, with your analysis of the peoples in the Peloponnese based on your reading of Mazaris' work.

Lakedaimons = Tsakonians (Greeks)

Egyptians = Gypsies (interesting; I thought it would be more on the lines of people coming from Egypt)

Peloponnesians = Greeks

Slavs = Slavs

Jews = Jews

Illyrians = Albanians

To be honest, the last part of your analysis (Illyrians = Albanians) sent my sociological senses tingling. Yes, I said "sociological senses", which are sort of like the kind of senses Spider-Man has only completely different and unrelated to anything that entails radioactive arachnids. Anyway, I am glad you stated that Mazaris' work provides no differentiation between Albanians and Arvanites. However, in the case of the Arvanites, we see works from Attaliates and Anna Komnena utilize words that are similar, but not the same (you know, "Albanoi" and "Arbanitai"). Sociologically speaking, Greeks always had a knack in geopolitics and were actually pretty good (not all the time mind you) when it came to understanding ethnic groups that were actually distinct even if they spoke similar languages.

What if Mazaris intentionally placed the Arvanites and the Albanians in one group? Prior forms of Byzantine scholarship would have either used "Albanoi" or "Arbanitai" being that each word discussed about a unique ethnic populace (even if they, coincidentally, sound similar). However, Mazaris (based on your analysis and my being bereft of the book itself so that I can verify certain things) used the word "Illyrians". This is not exactly surprising being that Priskos in the 5th century AD used the work "Scythian" in one of his works to describe the dress of a Greek person he met. We know the real Scythians were not present in the 5th century AD (if I am wrong, then someone please inform me right now).

Anyway, why would Mazaris utilize a geographic term to describe people that modern scholars would deem today as "Albanians"? Of course, the Albanians would state that Mazaris utilized the word "Illyrians" in order to directly describe the Albanians in the Peloponnese. However, social reality dictates that both Albanians and Arvanites migrated into Greece from Dalmatia (or "Illyricum" if you prefer to utilize the Roman term). Mazaris may very well have utilized the word "Illyrians" to make it easier for his linguistic analysis and bundle up any peoples (regardless if they were Arvanites or Albanians) that generally came from the regions of Illyricum and supposedly spoke the same language. Of course, I could be wrong being that this is a sociological analysis and Wikipedia is not exactly giddy in listening to a sociologist.

I know you are going to hate me for this, but Arvanitika sounds more like a Greco-Albanian language rather than just a plain Albanian dialect. Give me a second to prepare myself for the millions of hatemail messages that will flood my inbox from linguists of all brands and creeds. Better get my shield and fortify the castle walls.

When you hear Arvanitika, the first thing that comes to your mind is that the person you hear speaking Arvanitika is supposedly an "Albanian." Mazaris probably utilized this sort of thinking while writing his work. Of course, by the 15th century, it is a social fact that the Greeks spoke many languages that were, more or less, based on a Greco-[Insert Foreign Language Here] combination. Just so you know, the Greeks did this for adaptation purposes so as to increase their chances of survival by pretending, linguistically, to be people they have no ethnic affiliations with while at the same time being able to communicate with other Greeks. I could give you more details if you are interested.

So, the Albanians base their claim of the "Arvanites being Albanians" more so on language than on sociological processes and trends. Last time I checked, language is not the only factor in defining your ethnic background (I am sure you know this already). Language is a social construct mainly utilized for communications purposes. It is an important tool for communicating with others who are from the same ethnic group, but people utilize different languages (or combination of languages) in order to establish better lines of communication for diplomatic, economic, and even military affairs. In short, language alone is not enough to determine an ethnic group's background. It helps, but only to a limited extent. Case in point, I do not hail from jolly old England just because I can make my vocal chords produce sounds that might make people think I love Margaret Thatcher or assume that I eat fish-and-chips.

Would it be alright with you if I could place a sociological analysis of Mazaris' work? Oh, how wonderful it would be to do so. If you feel that it is unnecessary, then I understand. I am only asking because a sociological analysis may enrich one's knowledge of the social context from which Mazaris' work came from (it is just not enough to only provide a linguistic analysis of an ethnic group's history these days).

I apologize my friend for writing so much (damn sociologists and their sociological [Insert Curse Word Here]). However, I wanted to explain certain things to you in detail so that you can better understand where I am coming from in case I state something you may not agree with. Nice talking to you, take care, and excellent work on the Mazaris article. Thank you for your help. If you want to continue this nice conversation, then feel free to leave a message in my inbox whenever you have a "wikibreak" (wikibreak = Western European break = tea and crumpets; just kidding). Over and out. - Deucalionite 4/11/06 8:37 P.M. EST

Greeks

Thank you for reverting that, although I think the anon guy who did it deserves a beer for his humor! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Hello. At your arbitration statement about three weeks ago, you indicated you planned to present evidence against Zmmz, ManiF, Khashayar Karimi, and ZereshK, but you have yet to do so. Could you please spend some time on this, as I'd like to get the case moving, but don't want to act without all the evidence. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas, could you check your e-mail? Aucaman^Talk 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Aucaman^Talk 07:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mailed. Aucaman^Talk 06:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time

The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How perceptive of you

The editwarring is just part of my work as an undercover Arab. Stealthily, stealthily, I creep about WP, smearing everything with the touch of that insidious broken plural. Zora 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My English is very bad but

Sorry, my english is very bad.

Before the Rilindja movement the albanian L. it was written in three ways: latin, old greece and arabian. After the Rilindja decided that albanian L. must be written in lain some religion (church, moshe) istutition they dident stop to write in their way. The arabic "shkrimi arab i shqipes" way it was stoped from the albanians and they have started to write in latine with some terms from islam. The catholic church (west rite) uset latine way but they use also more latine latine. The orthodox church has don in same way like the catolich church, they have keeped they old greec writing of Albanian L. and uset more term from old greece language. Ofcourse, for exempel one muslim Albanian wehne he talk with the catholic or the orthodox who is leven in a part with Albanian school then dont have a problem. But in the North of (today) Greec they dont have that and user the term from the Church to speek Albanian L. Also Arvanitas is not a language more then local spoked language in Gjirokastra, Korça or any region down there. Arvanistas is even the dialect of the Albanian language, the only differen is the terms they use and how they write the Albanian L. For beter understandeng, each regularn member of the albanian orthodox church can speek this, how to say the religion version of the Albanian language. Ofcourse they diden haved the Schools in Albanian language and that maked it a littel bit difrent from standart Albanian L. This is in more places but hier is apecial beacose they write till today in "old grecce" way (user the old greece alfabet). I holpe that you have understand it. --Hipi Zhdripi 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the Irish and German translations :-) Telex 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed

Well, I was. He taught part of our module on Sociolinguistics -- which finished at the end of April -- I'm currently waiting for the grade back from one of my essays, which is online here if you are interested. He's actually a very good lecturer :) It was one of my favourite modules during the whole degree. - FrancisTyers 15:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Glocalisation"

yes, "sic" - I had read the article, and knew it wasn't a spelling error. That's exactly why I put that "sic" in... :-) BTW, I hear you are studying with Trudgill? Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought sic was used when there was a spelling mistake that should be acknowledged. However I just read the article and I see its for "unusual" spellings too. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good, so you wouldn't mind if we put it back in? - I'd seen a reference to your essay somewhere and gave it a cursory look the other day. Certainly looks like a nice piece of work - good to have some linguistics-savvy people around here. And I'm glad to hear you liked Trudgill as a teacher - we are currently planning to get him as a visiting professor at our place some time next year. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem :) Btw, I highly recommend Trudgill (in case you hadn't got that before) :) - FrancisTyers 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman case

Hi Lukas. Can you be more specific when you say "collective POV pushing" or "divisiveness/factionalising behaviour"? What does it consist of, who has been doing it, etc.? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm reading through it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid at this late stage, it seems more practical to close the case than to open a bunch of new modifications. Most of the things you propose do seem to be similar to current plans, but with varying degrees, some of which I certainly don't agree with (lightening the Aucaman remedies), and some for which I am still optimistic that probation can resolve (ManiF and KashK). In any case, the case will probably be closing soon. Dmcdevit·t 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the matter is that the raw evidence is the most useful, the arguments are less so, but once it becomes screens of screens of bickering, it's mostly useless and not worth the arbitrators' time. Dmcdevit·t 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for telling me. I didn't know honestly.. :-) «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me too and I didn't know honestly too. --Aminz 22:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Aucuman is uncivil"

But how can a group of people decide about the "personality" of and editor? Even a couple of actions should not give the others the right to judge about the personality of some editor. The title should be "Aucuman edits uncivil". --Aminz 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker but think even writing in an uncivil manner does not prove he IS uncivil (this is a generalization). I posted a comment on the talk page anyway. I hope I could edit on the talk page. --Aminz 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related ethnic groups in Greeks

Hi Lukas:). i saw that u have been involved in the discussion concerning the ethnic groups related to the Greeks. although it seems difficult to list separate groups (cause the Greeks form an IE branch on their own), we could list seperately, i think, only some peoples. i would say the Italians , Albanians and Armenians, fit better in this case. cause of the Graeco-Latin, Pelasgian and Graeco-Armenian hypothesises respectively. saying just 'Indoeuropean', is not info given to the readers, cause we are talking about c2 billion related people (not to say that by mentioning that the greeks are indoeuropeans, it is just a repetition!). by including Slavs and turks, we could possibly be closer to the truth, but the turks are considered an Altaic group (for reasons that i know u are aware of) and the slavs represent a communication with the greek people, for only less than the half of their history, and with no accounts for further relations, but only the fact that they are both indoeuropeans. my POV would be: related ethnic groups:Italians, Albanians, Armenians, and other Indoeuropean peoples. the case is confusing, and i am not sure if i am right or wrong, though...--Hectorian 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the issue is that this really all just demonstrates how confusing and useless that category is in itself. We should just scrap it. :-) You want to go by linguistic affiliation (in the genetic-linguistic sense, which gives "relatedness" of three millenia back); others might prefer "relatedness" through cultural similarities (which would put the focus on much more recent developments); or more recent language contact; or geopolitical links, or genetic admixture - take your pick. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

This arbitration case is now closed and the decision is published.

For the Arbitration Committee. --14:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I guess the edit warring around the Republic of Macedonia is postponed for now, so maybe we should cancel the request for protection. MatriX 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already did that, actually. Glad to see you guys have worked something out there. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that protection will be back on the agenda. I cannot accept the ignorance and irridentist agenda by editors who push Republic of Macedonia extremist line against Bulgaria or anyone else. Perhaps they are brainwashed so it is not their fault. As you see, I write this and I have not made any changes in the article but I think I will have to because they are speaking the facts. Makedonija 15:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Template

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

{{smiley|1}} will produce (Friendly smile)
{{smiley|2}} will produce (Confident)
{{smiley|3}} will produce (Mocking)
{{smiley|4}} will produce (Hysterical)
{{smiley|5}} will produce (Hurt)
{{smiley|6}} will produce (Very Sorry)
{{smiley|7}} will produce (Sleepy)
{{smiley|8}} will produce (You are Nive)
{{smiley|9}} will produce (I am not happy)
{{smiley|0}} will produce (No Comments)

«₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]