The page you wrote, Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add ((wait)) below the line ((QD)) and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. MathXplore (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We like and strongly encourage helpful changes to Wikipedia, but an article you created was directly copied and pasted from the main English Wikipedia. Please do not do that. Such articles are usually too complex. They need to be simplified before or immediately after being added to the Simple English Wikipedia. In addition, be sure to include attribution on the article's talk page. Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kojak Savalas! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links", which you used in "Fustanella". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! MathXplore (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kojak Savalas! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links", which you used in "Megaron". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! MathXplore (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kojak Savalas! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Related Pages" instead of English Wikipedia's "See also", which you used in "Paximathia". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Related Pages" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! MathXplore (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kojak Savalas! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links", which you used in "Placenta cake". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! MathXplore (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy over long complex sections from English Wikipedia to here as you did on Cithara. I have removed most of what you put there, leaving a simple stub. If you want to expand the article with information from the other wiki, you need to simplify it. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placenta cake is still very complex. See this one sentence as an example, "Later in 160 BC, Cato the Elder gave a recipe for placenta in his De Agri Cultura, which follows the Greek recipe for plakous and was possibly copied from a Greek cookbook." with multiple clauses and phrases and passive. You might consider using a sandbox in your userspace to simplify these before copying them over. --Gotanda (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Gross nationalist POV-pushing". Thank you. --Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are in an change war. Take care, because the three-revert rule does not let users make more than three reverts on a single page in a single day. Any user may still be blocked for being involved in a change war and disruption, even if they have not broken the three-revert rule. When you disagree with another user, you should first try to talk about changes in order to work together to improve Wikipedia and reach consensus. If you continue to disrupt the page, you may be blocked from changing Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

I an sorry for a possible attack, you are POV-pushing badly, but editors should be treated fairly. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kojak Savalas (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with you and others have got better

-)

88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally. Thanks again. Kojak Savalas (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Greek" was added as a reference to people calling you Greek ultranationalists "Romanian" was added as a reference to you calling people Romanian ultranationalists 88.110.38.249 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I don't understand what you're saying. Kojak Savalas (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if it was incomprehensible 88.110.38.249 (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per the outcome of WP:ST#Topic ban discussion, you have been banned from editing Aromanians and related articles. You are also banned from interacting with Super Dromaeosaurus. The restrictions of the interaction ban follow the restrictions of English Wikipedia's interaction ban. This ban will be lifted at the end of this calendar year. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kojak, hope you're well. Since the interaction ban has expired, we are now able to talk out our differences. There are still some edits in certain articles we fought in before that I disagree with. Would you like to try to find a middle ground? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait some more time for your reply as I am assuming good faith. My aim is to rewrite parts of articles I don't deem as neutral into neutral parts. I'd rather do this with your collaboration but I will also do it if I get no reply. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting but what do you mean exactly? Are you referring to our discussion on the Aromanians talkpage? Kojak Savalas (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you mean exactly by "middle ground" and "neutral parts"? Isn't appealing to the middle ground wrong if the facts are clear? And what happens when neutrality ends up neutralizing facts? Wouldn't that make any entry less trustworthy? So please clarify. Kojak Savalas (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to several articles. We could start at Aromanians. I see several issues that tilt the text to one specific point of view: that they origin is Greek (Binder is not a particularly good source and has been disregarded at en.wiki, and the other sources should be given as much weight as there is no academic consensus); the "Greek people" category when there are Aromanians living outside Greece, and this sentence: "In one of their songs called the Song of Metsovo, Aromanians sing: "Νόι ντι του μούντσι χίμου Ελάσλι" (transliteration: "Nói nti tou moúntsi chímou Elásli", "We highlanders are the Hellenes")". I could also find an example of relevant Aromanian figures making pro-Romanian and anti-Greek statements. This is not really useful for the article. Are you okay with working on these issues? I think it would make the article more neutral. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the response but there are some issues with your answer. First, your negative assessment of Binder is inconsistent with your affirmative response to 88.110.38.249's question as to whether the sources on the Aromanians page, including Binder, are reliable. Second, your view that Binder "has been disregarded at en.wiki" is inaccurate because he is only disregarded by two users with dubious editing histories (as far as I care to look) and they obviously do not speak for everyone over at the English Wikipedia (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). Third, academic claims, per WP:V, are not created equal and facts, again per WP:V, are not dependent on any kind of consensus (e.g., a consensus that the Earth is flat does not make the Earth literally flat). Finally, that you could also find "relevant Aromanian figures making pro-Romanian and anti-Greek statements" does not change the following facts: 1) the limited linguistic Latinization of Greece (~2nd century B.C.) occurred before the extensive cultural Latinization of Dacia (~2nd century A.D.), 2) Aromanian people do not suffer from mass amnesia and freely sing of their historic Greek origins in a version of Latin that historically precedes Romanian, and 3) historical falsification is a hallmark of both pro-Romanian propagandists claiming that Aromanians are ethnically Romanians (i.e., Latinized Dacians) and Italian fascists politically autonomizing Aromanians (i.e., Principality of Pindus) neither of whom should be given any attention whatsoever. So what is really useful is factuality because including different opinions, good and bad, will just make any entry on Simple English Wikipedia arbitrarily and unnecessarily complex. Besides, are you okay with working on the WP:V issues affecting, as far as I've seen, a sh*tload of articles over at English Wikipedia? I ask not to disrespect you but so you understand that most readers of English Wikipedia rightfully see the neutrality policy as a cover for promoting bullsh*t. Think about it. Kojak Savalas (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits at Armatoles. I thought I'd get reverted. I note that Binder does not seem to have written any other work related to the Aromanians and that he claimed Aromanian ethnicity for Koča Popović, a Yugoslav politician, because he basically heard it from someone on his way to Europe from the US (more here [4]). Having read research on the Aromanians for a while now I can say international authors (non-Greek, non-Romanian) do not adopt any particular theory including the Greek one, and some note that the Latinization of Greeks theory is not consistent with the Jirecek Line. An acceptance of the pro-Romanian camp of Aromanians is an 100% absolute condition for good cooperation as it has produced many great figures of the Aromanians. The vast, vast majority of people who ever cared about writing in Aromanian were either Aromanians in Romania or educated in Romanian schools. Many of the great modern authors on the Aromanians (Hristu Cândroveanu, Alexandru Gica, Nicolae Saramandu) are Aromanians from Romania who have expressed ethnic affiliation with Romania. To not give attention to this camp is absolutely not compatible with cooperation. Note that the Aromanians who revolted in WW2 had mostly affiliations with Italy and that those with affiliations with Romania were not very onboard with their actions. Zicu Araia went around villages to warn Diamandi was coming. He also helped convince Italians not to burn Grevena. I read as well about a lawyer I think surnamed Mitsobounas who formed a militia that fought both Greek partisans and Italian forces. It is a reality that Aromanians have differing opinions between each other. The pro-Greek and pro-Romanian positions have some acceptance outside of Greece and Romania, and there is also the position that they have no connection to either, which from what I see is majoritary in Albania and specially in North Macedonia. Ultimately I am asking for the two theories to be given the same weight. As a disclosure I do not think Aromanians are ethnic Romanians, only related to us. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Your response is compelling but Simple English Wikipedia does not accept original research. So nothing in your answer, as far as I can tell, really addresses the facts I mentioned earlier (the Jirecek Line you mentioned shows the presence of some Greek-speaking communities in the dominant Latin-speaking zone and some Latin-speaking communities in the dominant Greek-speaking zone). Don't get me wrong. No one denies that history is messy given your account of things. But balancing the theories you speak of runs the risk of committing the middle ground fallacy since not all theories are created equal. Think about it. Kojak Savalas (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see the Jireček Line shows a clear divide between Greek and Latin [5]. Regarding the sources you've reverted, have you seen several are written by Greek authors, some even in Greek? Smerlas 1999 was published by none other than the Ministry for the Press and the Media, a former government department in Greece. I am pretty sure these sources comply with WP:V. My intention is to discuss this issue civilly, to avoid the cancer from last time, but I do not understand why do you reject these edits as they're giving equal and neutral weight to two ethnic ancestry claims reliable sources give to the Zappas brothers. It might be necessary to resort to third parties to mediate in the dispute if we cannot reach an agreement, hopefully you're okay with that. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jirecek Line pictured on the English Wikipedia is inaccurate. There is a better image on Reddit where you have some Greek-speaking communities in the dominant Latin-speaking zone and some Latin-speaking communities in the dominant Greek-speaking zone. But the image is not without its problems as "Macedonian" should be replaced with "Vardarskan" to avoid confusion (among other things). But let's not get sidetracked. The sources by Greek authors you mentioned are, including Smerlas, factually deficient as already explained and demonstrated. Smerlas, specifically, was examined and found to be a poor quality source since "the Greek Ministry of Press and Mass Media is a government agency and not an organization qualified in researching and composing a sober history of Zappas and the modern Olympics" (and that's according to your English Wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboard, the members of which have discussed the subject of the Zappas family's ethnicity far longer than we have). So a Greek government agency publishing a Greek author's statement that lacks biographical facts necessary to prove the statement's accuracy is a dubious source, which cannot be included in any of the Zappas entries anywhere as doing so violates WP:V. Not to mention that the use of Vlachs by authors like Smerlas, for Mark Miller, "does not appear to exclude being Greek" (see dispute resolution noticeboard again). So just because a source is written by a Greek author in Greek does not make it a reliable source. And normally I would have no problem with third parties but given how the community responded to, in your words, "the cancer from last time", I would strongly advise against having them involved. Do we really need to tempt fate and risk getting permanently banned the moment other users see us and think "oh, it's those two again" even if we're on our best behavior? No thank you. As for "giving equal and neutral weight to two ethnic ancestry claims", that will undoubtedly create a false balance that misframes Zappas, be it Evangelos or Konstantinos, as "either X or Y" with no foundation in biographical fact. According to Mark Miller, "[t]he ethnicity of Evangelos Zappas as anything other than Greek has not been demonstrated" where Smerlas and the other "[s]ources simply do not demonstrate strong, multiple reliable referencing for exceptional claims and quotes from a living person" (in other words, "claims require specific evidence"). Equalizing two claims where one has specific evidence and the other doesn't adds nothing of value to any of the entries here. So I think it would be best to leave things as they are. Kojak Savalas (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a modern ethnolinguistic map with the Jireček Line superimposed on it. Regarding the discussion at en.wiki I've already explained my absolute opposition to using it as a reference. It can be clearly seen from Mark Miller's comments that he was no expert to the area, [6] shows he simply read the definition on the term "Vlach" at the article on the Aromanians at en.wiki and assumed the term could be referring to many groups, when it can only unambiguosly refer to the Aromanians in the context of 19th-century southern Albania. He knew so little about the topic at hand that he even expressed worry on the use of the term Vlach for it possibly being a "a pejorative term meaning an "outsider" or "shepherd"". The other participants of the discussion were Rolandi+, who was later blocked for being a sockpuppet, and Umpire Empire, another blocked sockpuppet with only 50 edits. To me that discussion is as inexpert and unauthoritative as it can get, and there is a reason why it has been ignored in en.wiki, with even Greek editors having ultimately consented to the inclusion on the Aromanian ethnicity claim in equal weight with the Greek one. But even if we were to take that discussion seriously, it is important to note that Mark Miller noted the following: "If editors were to agree on the text, those sources would be sufficient to make the claim that the subject was of a "Vlach" (especially if there are multiple sources for just that claim) background, but could not be used to state anything further unless the source is specific.". Mark Miller was simply not aware that, in this context, Vlach and Aromanian are synonymous. By the way, you're right in saying that because some sources call the Zappas brothers Aromanians it doesn't exclude the Greek claim, I am not aiming to exclude the Greek ethnicity claim anyway. I could also make the opposite claim by the way, and I have elaborated on how below.

Yes, the map is problematic but the point is that the Jirecek Line is an imaginary boundary and not, in your words, a "clear divide". But forget the Line. Getting back to the matter at hand, your assessment of Mark Miller is completely unfair. Miller, whatever his field(s) of expertise, was inquisitive and fair in his handling of the dispute shown by his examining the definitions of "Vlach" and "Aromanian" with reliable sources and making a logical conclusion. Not to mention that he maintained his composure throughout the long-ass dead-horse beating dispute when anyone else would have given up after a day or two. And if it's true that Miller "knew so little about the topic", then that proves what? That he cannot render a rational ruling based on available facts? That historical facts must give way to whoever is an expert in your eyes? Is it possible that you are projecting your own lack of expertise evidence for which third parties can find from our heated encounters? Let me be clear, I am not trying to shame you but rather to show you that your assessment of others is mistaken however well-meaning. Take what you wrote about Rolandi+ and Umpire Empire for instance. Yes, both users have checkered pasts. What of it? Is committing the genetic fallacy going to literally change history and make Zappas equally X and equally Y according to your whims or anyone else's? Yes, Rolandi+ was the one who started the whole dispute and other users discovered that he had a conflict of interest. But say what you will about Rolandi+, the one good thing the user did was submit the same sources you submitted that were going to be scrutinized at some point for the dispute to reach some type of useful resolution. And say what you will about Umpire Empire, but at least the user explained well enough why the sources Rolandi+ was pushing were problematic and it just so happens that Umpire Empire was correct. Because trying to pass unreliable sources as reliable is unencyclopaedic regardless of who you are or where you're from. That the community, as you say, has ignored the resolution does not mean that the resolution has no value as a precedent and it also does not mean that the resolution will be ignored by the community forever. And please don't say I'm right because this is not about me being right but about quality and factuality being respected. Kojak Savalas (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now onto the sources. I had already expressed dissatisfaction with your analysis of the sources at Talk:Evangelos Zappas. Let's take the example of Thomopoulos 2012. You expressed two points here: that her use of Vlach does not necessarily mean Aromanian (a point which I find, quite honestly, barely worthy of any discussion, though we can discuss it if you wish), and that she gives no biographical facts to support her affixing the designation to Zappas. As I understand, you're stating that she's plainly stating the Zappas were of Aromanian ancestry, the problem being that the sources supporting the Greek claim do this as well. Decker 2005 simply states "E. Zappas, a Greek born in Albania (Ottoman Empire) but living in Romania..."; Iordachi 2013 briefly states too that "he assumed multiple identities related to his place of borth (Albania), his ethnic origin (Greek)..."; Hill 1992 states "Evangelios Zappas, a rich merchant of Greek origin living in Romania."; Brownell 2008 states "Evangelis Zappas, a Greek diaspora merchant..."; and Chatziefstathiou and Henry 2012 state "to Evangelios Zappas, a rich merchant of Greek origin...". I cannot access the quotes at Young 1991 and Gerlach 2004. In the way these sources assert their claim, they really are no different from the ones claiming Aromanian ancestry. And I could even argue the point that, unlike "Aromanian"/"Vlach" which has a very clear and unambiguous sense of cultural and/or ethnic belonging, the use of "Greek" by these sources does not necessarily exclude Aromanian ancestry as Greece was during most of the brothers' lifetime already a country and they could have been labelled Greek per their nationality by some of these authors without them necessarily also making a claim at the same time on their ethnic origin being Greek or not. Your analysis of my sources was many paragraphs long, while that of yours, was three-sentences-long. Respectfully, I felt like that was a bad joke that was being played on me. To me, the fact that Greek authors or authors of Greek ancestry mention the Zappas' potential Aromanian ancestry, including some official entities such as the Greek Ministry of Press and Mass Media or the History Directorate of the Hellenic Army General Staff, goes to show that this claim at the very least deserves (and receives) notable consideration within Greek studies. If these sources mention this claim, why wouldn't we too? I would imagine that the aforementioned ministry would be competent enough not to include a fringe claim regarding an important figure in Greece, and I assert that their inclusion of the claim is a positive sign regarding the claim's importance. But even if we were to doubt their authority as a history-researching body (which by the way, was done by involved party Umpire Empire and not by Mark Miller), would we really be able to do the same with the History Directorate of the Hellenic Army General Staff as well?

Your dissatisfaction aside, equalizing factually accurate sources with factually inaccurate sources will not create the balance you're looking for. As for the other sources, they would have been scrutinized sooner had things gone differently over at the Evangelos Zappas talkpage (let's not reopen that can of worms). Anyway, I did not say that Thomopoulos treats Zappas as having Aromanian ancestry. Rather, I said that Thomopoulos "gives no clarification of the designation 'Vlach' and no biographical facts to support her affixing the designation to Zappas." Nothing more, nothing less. The other sources using the word "Greek" have less to worry because the word generally means "of Greek ancestry". But whatever the meaning of "Greek" in the sources you have taken issue with, it is in David C. Young's research article from 2005 where we have the biographical facts proving that Zappas' ethnic background was historically Greek via his parents Sotira and Vasileios. So as far as anyone is concerned, given Young's specialized contributions, the other sources stating that Zappas was historically Greek are superior in quality compared to the ones that don't, terminology issues aside. And because you requested the other sources to be scrutinized on the Evangelos Zappas talkpage, I will provide the quote from the 2012 source by Chatziefstathiou and Henry as a show of good faith. As you can clearly see below, the authors state that Zappas was "of Greek origin" using/affirming Christopher R. Hill's work from 1992 (no mention of Zappas' parents though):

"In 1859 and 1870, sport festivals, ‘similar’ to the Ancient Greek Olympic Games, were held in Greece. Greece owed the staging of these Games to Evangelios Zappas, a rich merchant of Greek origin living in Romania who was passionate about. Inspired by a lecture by the German archaeologist Ernst Curtius delivered on 10 January 1852 arguing that the Games should be revived, Zappas wanted to see Greece regaining its leading position in the western cultural world (Hill 1992)."

But you may be thinking, "well this is just as good as any source that says that Zappas was of Aromanian/Vlach origin". How so? The facts, courtesy of Young's specialized research, clearly state that Zappas was historically Greek confirming what other reputable sources have already said about Zappas' background. If there is an official Greek government/media source that says otherwise without any counterfactuals, then that source is unreliable per WP:V. Just because it was Umpire Empire and not Mark Miller who stated that publications from official Greek agencies are flawed is beside the point. Because not all sources are created equal obviously (and that is the point). As for your statement about unambiguous Aromanian/Vlach ethno-culturality and Greek nationality, that is original research that Wikipedia will not accept. You need to accept the fact that Zappas' ethnicity was historically Greek and that there are no counterfactuals (not the same as counterclaims) that cast doubt on that fact. How can anyone respect alternate claims about Evangelos and Konstantinos when everyone has access to their will and testament, all in Greek, with no mention of either of those individuals having a background other than Greek. Kojak Savalas (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And lastly, I'd also rather prefer the community not to get involved, as they were useless the last time and gave us a common punishment to falsely feel the problem had been solved, but also because I've just checked that Simple English Wikipedia does not have dispute resolution venues like English Wikipedia, the administrators' noticeboard would be the only appropriate venue and I'd rather avoid it. But to be quite honest, the Aromanians have been my main editing area for some years now, and I'm willing to go as far as possible, even if it gets me or others blocked, in order to solve a situation that I may see as unfair, either by getting my way through or by reaching a middle ground with the other party. Quite specially in this case, in which in my own opinion and unlike yours, both claims seem to have just as much strength. Hopefully, I may have partially argued my case to you regarding the latter with this message. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. Did you just admit that you are here specifically to edit war? That is not good. History, first of all, is no one's personal plaything. What actually happened in the past happened. If the facts show that Zappas was ethnically Greek, then we must respect the facts. We don't take it upon ourselves as users to equalize substantiated claims with unsubstantiated claims merely because we arbitrarily feel compelled to do so. And for whatever reason, it appears that you are experiencing some sort of identity crisis that Simple English Wikipedia cannot hope to resolve for you. So I respectfully ask that here you drop the stick and let sleeping dogs lie. Stick to whatever it is you're doing over at English Wikipedia, because if you go too far with what you just admitted, then there is the real risk of you facing a global block. I am not trying to intimidate you. Instead, I am advising that you quit while you are still ahead. And I get that you are passionate about a certain subject and agree that community interventions oftentimes complicate things. But what would also complicate things is getting yourself blocked permanently because you cannot let some things go. No one is going to take away your Jedi membership card if you decide to just let it go and move on. Kojak Savalas (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kojak Savalas! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Related pages" instead of English Wikipedia's "See also", which you used in "Armatoles". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Related pages" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! MathXplore (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]