Simanos

Battle of Thermopylae and Battle of the Persian Gate

Are you 89.210.162.151? Did you reply to my comment at Talk:Battle of Thermopylae? warrior4321 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, firstly congratulations and welcome to the Wikipedian community! Secondly, perhaps you should re-read your latest comment on the Talk:Battle of Thermopylae? You had said wouldn't mind you removing the heavy casualties bit if you had the courage and honour to also remove it from the Battle of Persian Gate article, which deserves it even less.

Did I not remove the "heavy casualties" from the Battle of Persian Gate? The reason why I did not add Pyrrhic victory on Battle of Thermopylae is because there was an invisible comment that said -not- to. I did not do anything to spite you. I'm sorry you feel that way. warrior4321 03:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Both battles were decisive victories for the attackers. I therefore disagree with you about Thermopylae, but agree with you about the Persian Gate. It does not matter how many people die (or don't die); a decisive victory is one which substanially alters the strategic balance between the opposing armies. The Greeks lost most of Greece after Thermopylae = decisive victory for the Persians. The Persian lost their capital, etc. after the Persian Gate = decisive victory for the Macedonians.

I recommend that you give up trying to change the result of Thermopylae; I am no POV-pusher, but I can see it was decisive victory. However, by the same terms, I strongly recommend you undo changes to Persian gate that try to make it a 'Pyrric' victory :-)

Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. warrior4321 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are lying! When did I attack anyone at that page you linked? Simanos (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, here and here. warrior4321 22:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Warrior4321. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. warrior4321 22:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying please or I will report you. The 3 links you just gave do not show me attacking anyone. All I am doing is posting my logical opinion and facts about the article and about the BANNED IP sock-puppet. What part of that do you understand to be a personal attack on an ANONYMOUS IP? Simanos (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do you recognize these:

How many banned IPs will it take for you to get a life and go away?

Get a life

I would like to add this stuff from the Iranian IPs POV pushers

Those are your personal attacks that you stated on the article. Remember to comment on the content, not on the contributors. As well, please remember you do not need to yell, which is symbolized by capital letters.warrior4321 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks at all. Those were THE FACTS. The Persian POV pusher was a BANNED user with many sock-puppet IPs tha also were BANNED within the day. Saying "go away" and "get a life" to an ANONYMOUS repeat offender is NOT a personal attack. Stop trying to bully me or I will report you. I await your apology and no more nonsense. Simanos (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, asking someone to go away and get a life are personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA. No one is bullying you. I gave you a friendly reminder not to engage in personal attacks. No, I will not "apologize" to you. You -did- attack the editor, you must understand that. Discuss things with the IP editor in a civil manner. warrior4321 23:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ACTUALLY they aren't personal attacks at all. I'm not asking "someone", but an anonymous, I'm asking a BANNED user, a repeat offender. On the other hand your attempt at bullying me can be construed as a threat and it does fall under the "threats" section of the NPA article you linked. So stop now or I will report you. This is your final warning. I don't even want an apology any more. Just stop. Simanos (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You could do it a little more civility. How am I "threatening" you? In WP:NPA, it states "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." warrior4321 23:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not uncivil at all. I was within the limits of debate. If your opponent (in a debate) makes mistakes it is not uncivil for you to point them out (even if it appears sarcastic). About you "threatening" me, do I have to spell it out? As I explained your unfair warnings could be construed as a bullying attempt that would perhaps put fear into the heart of a timid wiki editor. Bullying is a way of threatening others. Do you understand? I commented both on the IP's logic for his changes to the article that I remedied and also I supported my view that he was POV pushing (to support my edits) because he was a banned sock-puppet. I showed evidence. What more do you want? Do you want to be reported and warned by admins? Simanos (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What evidence have you shown me? That he was a sockpuppet? You launched an attack on the editor, whether he was a sock-puppet or not is not important. The issue here is that you attacked an editor. Thus, becuase of your attack you received a -reminder-. The second reminder was well justified as well, you cannot say "I'm going mad" because I asked that you do not attack others. I did not threaten you in any way, putting warnings are just reminders to inform you of the purpose of Wikipedia, to build the biggest encyclopedia for free, not launch attacks on editors. Whether they be admins or sock-puppets, a personal attack is a personal attack. warrior4321 00:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK it seems your reading comprehension skills are lacking so I will let you cool down for the night, but if you are still at it (this nonsense) tomorrow, I will report you to the admins Simanos (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, on my talk page, I thought you had understood what a personal attack was. I guess I was wrong. Saying that my reading comprehension skills are lacking is a -definite- personal attack. It is not a -fact- as you say, because you cannot assert that fact without knowing several factors. Therefore, it is your opinion. It is your opinion that my reading comprehension skills are low. Your opinion is a personal attack. Please stop these attacks. One more insult on my intelligence or my mental stability and I will report you. warrior4321 00:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. That would save me some time tomorrow morning. I truly hope you're not Warrior4321 and his account has been compromised, because though he disagreed with me he didn't behave crazy like you have done the last few days. Simanos (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am behaving crazily? You constantly insult my mental stability, my health, and my intelligence. No, my account has not been compromised, I'm just shocked that someone I used to respect would insult me. At Talk:Battle of Thermopylae, I thought you to be someone with a great amount of intelligence who knew what he was talking about. Now, the way you attack other editors and myself is just childish.

Furthermore, blocks are used to stop disruptive behavior, it is not a punishment of any sort. I am not going to "go ahead" and just report you if no more personal attacks are done. I hope you will stop these attacks, as I don't -want- to report you. Please understand that. warrior4321 00:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You said 1 more "insult" and you'd report me. I said go ahead, your behaviour is crazy. Now you say you won't report me. Didn't think you would. You know what will happen if you do. I've done nothing wrong, no attacks on you or anyone else. Simanos (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Simanos, you need to tone down your language. Wikipedia is a place for respectful conversations, even in disagreement. Please read Wikipedia:Civility. More of the same will likely result in a block. These edits [1], [2] and [3] are not within the limits of civil debate on Wikipedia, and when this was pointed out to you by Warrior4321, your response was quite aggressive. henrik•talk 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I was perhaps a bit too hasty here. Simanos, an aggressive response usually yields the same in response. We try not to insult or denigrate even banned users - calmly explaining what the problem is, and if they still don't listen, simply ejecting them from the conversation is usually a better strategy. Even though Warrior4321 may have been a bit hasty in his initial warnings, a more tempered response could probably have prevented the situation from needlessly escalating over several days. How about we bury the hatchets, drink some tea, wish everyone a happy new year and just move on? henrik•talk 17:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you understood your mistake. I was not the one making personal attacks and abuses. I merely copy-pasted and pointed to what the banned sock-puppet had said elsewhere to put things into perspective. In fact I did not make a single insult to the IP-hopper. All I said was to go away and find something else to do. Now maybe you could explain that to Warrior4321 cause the IP sockpuppet keeps vandalising the Persian Gates Battle article. Simanos (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the tone in some of your messages comes across as pretty aggressive. You'll probably find it'll reduce friction if you made an effort to moderate your tone somewhat. This whole spat with Warrior4321 seems pretty unnecessary. henrik•talk 19:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man. I know I overdid it a bit with Warrior4321, but it's his fault. I could have just ignored his erroneous warning, but given his past and the fact that he lately started a bad pattern of issuing a lot of these unnecessary warning to others too I wanted to make a point. After I called him on it he could have admitted his mistake and end it at that, but he escalated it unreasonably. I'm sorry, but it had to be done this way. As you can see he started a more formal attempt to discredit me which will backfire unfortunately for him. He's not a vandal, but he is wrong in this case. Simanos (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What bad pattern. You mean I gave a warning to User:Pmanderson who is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for his -personal attacks-. (see here) The other User:Errormeek has had many warnings from different editor this last month. As well, he is now banned for being a sockpuppet. As well, what "past' do you speak of? warrior4321 03:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it still takes two to tango. Putting the entire blame on Warrior4321 is not accurate nor helpful. Look, you could both have handled this better. Had either of you tried to deescalate the situation I'm sure we wouldn't be here now. I would strongly suggest you two take a break from commenting on each other for a while now. henrik•talk 08:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That link you gave contains nothing about Pmanderson and I don't see him blocked or whatever. For what it's worth you probably gave erroneous warnings to only 2 or 3 people that I know off and that's not enough to call it a pattern, my bad. I hope you can also see your own mistakes. (BTW your past I was implying was regarding the battles for Thermopylae and Persian Gates and some of your edits) Simanos (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Simanos. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding your personal attacks. Thank you. warrior4321 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation Simanos (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't doing any personal attacks after all. How about you apologise for your false accusations? Simanos (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing?

You said don't be lazy, what about this? The best interpretation imo is that Ctesias is talking about Thermopylae when he says 120,000 Persians and not Plataea. These are your last words you said in that section, I am not pov pushing, When Ctesias say's Another 120,000 fought at Plataea, then he is talking about how many fought. Why can you know the difference, The camp of the Persians was according to Herodotus 2.7 million, but only 1.8 possible could have fought in Thermopylae. Why don't you change the number to 2.7 million? Because Herodotus names who fought, and it is exactly the same as Ctesias, the Cissians, Medes, and other Asians, plus the last force of Immortals and others on the fourth day is in all 120,000. Your stuck in one mindset, Ctesias description matches that of Herodotus for Thermopylae, how could mix up the numbers? Not only do they add up to 120,000, but Ctesias states that number too. I am barely POV pushing and I am not doing OR, OR is what that banned user I read about did when he said 80,000 and OR'd the last 40,000 to his own POV. Again, your mixing up invasion camp force (which he said 800,000 invaded), with how many Xerxes actually sent to fight in Thermopylae, like you said, not all sent actually fought, but all sent is 120,000 according to Ctesias. By the way, you already know modern estimates are close to Ctesias' number, so why don't you accept that? This is POV pushing. Please don't make accusations, I suggest you ask others about this problem (not just one) that other users have created based on their poor understanding of basic English and how to read common sense sentences.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the article page, why post this here? Simanos (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Let us have a coffee on the Aristotle's place in Thessaloniki.

I admire your cleverness, swiftness of thought and sense of humor. You know who I am, have my full address. I would like to know who you are, to see whether you are so courageous man when not anonymous. I will be in Thessalonki again this July. Let us have a cap of "Greek coffee there?Draganparis (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather poke my eyes out with a spoon and force feed em to an angry lion. ;p (j/k)

Seriously though I might be in Patras soon not Thessaloniki. I think your problem is (assuming you're not a troll) that you're too old and not willing to learn new things and accept other opinions differing from your own. Basically you just have trouble admitting you're wrong. Simanos (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether I am right or wrong is the other question. My point was: I am wondering whether you can have enough courage to get out of anonymity. So the question which I ask is: who are you? Can you talk to me, to the outside world, freely as a free person, openly, showing your face, as I am doing it? Can you? Do you have to hide behind the Wiki names? I, myself, I am in front of you all, I disclosed who I am. Now you, show us your face if you are such a MAN as you pretend to be!

So I pretend to be a MAN. Don't you say further down that you never used ad hom? How about this thinly veiled insult? After you invited me to meet I amicably described to you my personal opinion of you and reasons that I may have to decline for. I meant no offense, I was merely responding to your call. Simanos (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then comes the above mentioned "other" question: am I right? You say I have trouble in admitting that I am wrong. In the disputes we have had 2-3 very simple, trivial questions where we disagreed. I mean I disagree with your group. The dispute was over slightly different accent that I want to give to the interpretation of some details. To somebody outside of the Greek world the difference over which we quarreled would appear to be invisible. In addition, there is nothing particularly new about our disagreements. These points have been the causes of the disputes for long time. So the dispute is not over "new things" and my not being prepared to accept “new things”.

Therefore the question that remains is: are you a MAN who can say: here I am, so help me God, as Luther said?Draganparis (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's your other problem. You talk too much. You treat anonymity as a universally bad thing and it isn't. It empowers people in many situations to speak up about grave injustices. I could go on, but I wouldn't want to commit the same mistake as you. Also daring someone like you just did can be considered impolite, offensive, to downright illegal (stalking). Please be aware that this isn't a ring or a parliament. I'm not saying you're wrong on everything, but you're trying to pass yourself off as never being wrong in anything. You might want to start admitting your fallibility with specific examples instead of general vague sayings. Like for instance admit that the way you presented the sock-puppet investigation rulings was a big error. Simanos (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow.... kinda sounds like provocation to a duel...Swords or pistols, boyz? GK 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Swords not pistols, and I'll be using a pen ;p Simanos (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No matter how friendly I write, you come with your “pen”…. Do you think I can not do the same? Explain how stupid you are, for example? This will not need much of imagination to show. But I do not do this, I try to explain, if you would have ears to hear…

Do the same? When did I "explain how stupid you are" in the above? Simanos (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity liberates (only partially!) one from responsibility. So you can say or do things you would be ashamed to say or do if the others knew who you are. People care what the others think of them. This helps put morality at work. So it is just opposite to what you say about pointing out grave injustice – if you were refereeing to the ordinary injustice. In exceptional and extreme cases, anonymity helps, but these exceptional cases are rare. Recently, Wikileack report on US killing civilians in Afghanistan is an example where anonymity was essential. But you hide behind a pseudonym to insult people by for example telling them that they lie – what is offending and impolite. If you said that they did not say the truth, would be the same, but not impolite. Otherwise you do not say to people every day that they lie. You would be ashamed of this because people would think you are not cultivated enough. So anonymity helps you to be impolite.

I talk too much? May be. But when one understands so little, more explanation may help. Are we now on the same level of impoliteness? Or you are able to show more aggression?Draganparis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

So are you ever gonna acknowledge that you did in-fact try to twist the situation of the sock-puppet investigations? You talk so much yet always avoid answering the tough questions and taking responsibility. You don't need anonymity cause you have no shame, or sense. Simanos (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. What answer you want to have? I admitted that according to the Wikipedia criteria I was involved in a sockpuppetry (we thought, my son and I, that this was permitted). This was the first case. The second case was sockpuppetry CERTAINLY performed by the person I never discovered who he/she was. I suspect that that person also did not know that he/she was doing something illegal (by Wikipedia standards). This is what happened. The third case: The sockpuppetry investigation that I started revealed that you and the other Greeks operate from the vicinity and (this was my "insinuation", my hypothesis) that you probably collaborate. OK, I do not have a proof so I can not say this. However, you even do not have to collaborate, you AGREE so much in your intentions that this is like collaborating or sockpuppetry. And this should not be permitted too. One intelligent, well informed Administrator should ask the group to restrain and should pay more attention to the "different" opinions, different from the opinions of the biased group (your group). This is my final answer.

No you didn't. In your userpage it still reads "AGAIN: Would you please remove the false accusations". And in your talk page you merely say "1. I was accused of sockpuppetry and banned for 2 weeks." and you make it sound (in the preceding paragraph) like it was an unfair ruling imposed on you by some cabal. Your conclusion about "our" views is also wrong, as one might also conclude the same of your views and any other FYROM-POV-pushing editor. We're just not the same guy, accept it and apologise for your false accusations. We don't collaborate any more than other editors in wikipedia are prone to. We don't even talk to each other on our talkpages much. Vicinity is a weasel word to use. We don't even operate from the same university, but from our homes (not even net cafes). The fact that people agree with each other and disagree with you is not evidence of anything other than perhaps that YOU might be wrong (or not). Deal with it. Intelligent and well informed administrators have asked the group Draganparis+sockpuppets to restrain from war editing and trolling and spamming and well sock-puppeting. So I think wikipedia was well served in this case, though personally I would have banned you too, not just your socks. And your story about a person in your uni is just lame, drop it till you have proof. This is my final answer. Simanos (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, since you like reading my texts. If you want to engage on the way of pan-Hellenism, you do not have to claim that everything was Greece. Presenting mythology as history is ineffective and not convincing. And is a sign of bad knowledge of history as science. But, if you want this, it is even better to claim that the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks but they BECAME Greeks after Alexander! In this manner you get away from the racist connotations (which are otherwise dangerously present). And you may even profit by keeping the word "Macedonia" there where it has to be: in the period before Hellenization. You are all so much afraid that the modern Macedonia will use this, although, it is so clear, so clear that the claims of modern Macedonia about the links with the Ancient Macedonia are just ridiculous and do not and will never present serious challenge. So there is no real danger to highly praise and insist on the Ancient Macedonia without which there would have probably been no Hellenization in the extent - thanks to the Ancient Macedonia - it was so present and so overwhelming for centuries! And which is still present today.Draganparis (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Greeks weren't Greeks even. They were Atheneans, Spartans, Thebans, etc. Before that was Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians. The Greek cities also had so many slaves of unknown origins, probably some were conquered natives. What is true is that the ruling civilization of the general area that colonized vast areas was what we now call Greek in the English language. And like Atheneans fought against Spartans and Thebans etc, so did the Macedonians fight with them eventually. There is no reasonable doubt that the Macedonian ruling civilization was "Greek" long before Alexander the Great and also more importantly there's no evidence of any prior civilization in that area using the name Macedon and not being "Greek". They used other names before that in that area. I'm glad you agree that FUROMians are just Slavs (Bulgarians, etc) and Albanians (with a few Greeks there too, even their president has Greek grandparents) and that their Macedonian claims are ridiculous, but I just don't think they are not serious challenges at all. If there was no seriousness then the other countries of the world would have ridiculed them already instead of recognise them and they would stop all their current BS already. Instead the FYROMian agencies are involved in a pathetic brainwashing campaign to brainwash their own population and that creates a bad relations nightmare for the next century. Their people are fed lies and propaganda and it's kinda sad that no one is doing anything to help them. Quite the opposite really, people laugh and ridicule Greece for being on the side of truth (well mostly at least, we have nut-cases too). Simanos (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see we can agree almost 100%. Not bad. Just one detail: if we would apply your philosophy of the nation creation (creation or belonging to the Greeks, for example), we would be obliged to call all European nations "one single nation", although I do not know which one! Their language is much, much younger then Greek and before that time this was an indo-european mixture of similar dialects or whatsoever. We distinguish even Austrians from Germans, or Dutch from Germans. Their destiny was to diverge to different "nations". Greek destiny was inverse, the Macedonians and Greeks converged int Greek nation. In more ancient times they certainly all diverged into various Greek tribes one of which could have been Macedonians, but apart from spurious mythology (Constantinh VII Porphyrogenitus from 10 century!!!! is a "proof"!?? for example) there is no evidence. We are obliged to take history as history, mythology as mythology and write it SEPARATELLY. I know we disagree there, but the objective approach is on my side, I am afraid. As political entities, Macedonia and Hellas were at least as different as Austria and Germany today. The language, even if they were from the same origin, incomprehensible. Modern linguists (B. W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture, An Introduction, Second edition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, p. 10 and 464.) claim big differences. I think before we would take it for granted, we better wait to see whether the theory will hold the proof of time.

How does my philosophy of nation creation obliges us to call all European nations a single nation? It's pretty different things. The closest example would be Jews and their 12 tribes. Sure the Germanic tribes fragmented into Deutchland and Austria and more, but that's different and more modern history (though in WW2 they were united pretty much). It bears no similarity to Greece, though you could argue about Europe being heavily influenced by the Roman Empire (and it from Greece) and having a common heritage. You say the Macedonians and Greeks converged into the Greek nation, I would say the Athenians, Corinthians, etc were molded into a Greek state/alliance by the Macedonians. There is no evidence that the Macedonians were anything other than a Greek tribe. The Greeks were spread all over the Med. From Ionia and the Black Sea to Gibraltar the Greeks were one of the more numerous people around. As for Greeks vs Hellenes, you might want to look at the battle of Marathon ancient monument. Greek was mainly what the west called em. Yunan what the east called em. Hellenes was the name they chose for themselves pretty much. Iones and Graeci were just 2 tribes of the Hellenes as is pretty clear. The history and the mythology both agree with my approach and disagree with yours. The language of the Macedonians was a dialect of Greek, nothing more. Even today if I go to Cyprus I'm gonna have big trouble understanding what they say. It doesn't mean they are speaking a foreign language. It's just a dialect. The same BS was going on about the Myceneans and greek-haters were saying they had no relation to later Greeks, well that was proven wrong when their writings were deciphered. Same with Macedonia. I mean just look at anything Macedonian, even names from 600 BC and you see it's clearly Greek. You have no leg to stand there. Only fringe theories.Simanos (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

About FYROM claims: I never met anybody who takes them seriously. Even modern Macedonians, I know some, do not take these claims seriously. They know this is a political maneuver. However, when they teach regional history, which is a modern way of presenting history, the Ancient Macedonia is included, which is correct. But it should not be misunderstood and taken as national history. (Could we try to limit the discussion to one place only, my talk page for example; although, I think we arrived at full agreement, so there is not much to discuss at present.)Draganparis (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you never met anyone, but your anecdotal evidence is not worth much, especially since it goes against reality. Same with your views on modern FYROMians. Their previous president admitted it, but he was assassinated and barely survived and their brainwashing propaganda has gotten much worse since. Do you want me to show you videos of that?Simanos (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, I have seen some of this. It is just crazy. What I told you is not single episode. My neighbor is from FYROM. So I meet him quite often and see often his friends who come to visit him. Yes, they start as you say. But when I start talking to them and examining their arguments we always comes to the conclusion that they do not seriously believe to have much links to the Ancient Macedonia, apart from the land. But they like that tradition, obviously like to have great past (!!), want to keep the name of the state because they, there ancestors, have been for, may be 15 centuries, there. Apparently Greek resistance to the name problem makes them have exuberant aspirations. Greece should let them use the name (with some attribute that would help avoid confounding their identity with that of the Ancient Macedonia), and the problem will disappear. This is what I believe. But my interest is more the Ancient Macedonia, so let us not talk so much about FYROM.

No tnx? What is crazy? Your story sounds true and yet it is kinda infuriating. You know these FYROMians are lying, they know it too, but do it anyway, and you call for Greece to back down and let em use whatever name they want. Sadly I think the term we're heading for is (Republic of) North Macedonia or something similar. Personally I would prefer Slavomacedonia or Slavonic Republic of North Macedonia (ok that's silly), but the real name should be Vardarska like it always was for that region really. Don't you agree? Vardar Republic has a nice ring to it too.Simanos (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your saying Ancient Macedonians were Greeks is the same as saying the Serbs are Croats. Or the Serbs are Russians. Or the Walloons are French. Or Swiss French speakers are French! This is simply not so. Racial connotations should not be mixed with political entities. Russians and Poles are also close ("racially"), but separate political entities. The language of the Serbs and Croats are ABSOLUTELY the same, but these are completely separate political entities since 15 centuries!!! And they lived side by side all this time! The Ancient Macedonians almost completely merged with Greeks, and some their small part with the other surrounding peoples. Before this happened, they were completely separate self conscious political entity. When writing history, political entity is important, racial links much less if at all. So I object to you and your group for introducing racial argument into political history. This is grave, long reaching mistake. And, to answer your last aggressive message: may be, dude, if you would go to school for some time, you will manage to understand what I am saying.Draganparis (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you got it all wrong. It's more like the 12 tribes of Israel. The Greek tribes (Macedonians, Atheneans, Spartans, Ionians, Dorians, Myceneans, etc etc etc in various ages) all had more than just language uniting them. It was culture too. There's simply no evidence of any entity using the name Macedonia EVER that was not Greek in culture in the ways that mattered most. It is pretty easy to distinguish who is Greek and who not, because at the time they called everyone else a barbarian, pretty much like the Jews separated themselves from the gentiles. And pls don't bring up any lame attempts by demagogues that called Macedonians at one time or another worse than barbarians, because that had been done of other Greek tribes too and it was clear demagoguery of the times. The point is that in lets say 800 BC the "Greeks" were a fragmented entity like the Slavs perhaps, but that didn't mean it was the Greeks on one side and Macedonians on the other. It was every city for itself really. The word Greek now encompasses what Yugoslavia encopassed when it existed. A union of people and tribes in one common state and nation. I'm sure you're familiar with how much hatred exists even today between Thessalonikians and Atheneans. It doesn't mean we're not one country. If you go to Crete you'll also be surprised at how different things are. I guess Greek is a state of mind after all. Simanos (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

May be, although the evidence for what you are saying is simply not there. It was a pleasure discussing with you, anyway. Excuse me if I used some strong words here or there. I did not want to insult you. We could stop now, until you would attack me .. next time! Cheers.Draganparis (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is evidence for what I'm saying and no evidence for anything else, only suppositions and hypothesis. BTW I already did "attack" you again I think ;p Simanos (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

False warning

Copyover fromrevert in questionWQA case 1WQA case 2

You will note that case 1 resulted in no punishment for me because I was not proven to have been overly aggressive or whatever with no good reason (same thing with your false warning). Also case 2 is just Dragan trying to launch an investigation on 4 editors (myself included). The investigation failed to produce the result he wanted of course, proving he is not only a lying (about what sources say) troll and spammer sock-puppeteer (proven), but also uses the thinking process of conspiracy theorists. How much more time of ours and yours (Admins) are you going to let him waste? Simanos (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning + response

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please not another one. Did you just become an admin too? I'm calling a spade a spade. Stating FACTS. Please look up and see what happened to the last admin that falsely accused me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simanos&redirect=no#Notice

Why did you remove the above text and the one further above it? Is that you withdrawing your warning? I'm confused sorry. OK I figure you made a mistake and it was accidental since it's still on your talk page. Simanos (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

Remove your warning to me please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." There is ample evidence Draganparis is a sock-puppeteer, he was investigated twice and both times his socks were banned and he was blocked for a while. He was also blocked for disruptive editing (trolling). I mean, just look at his talk-page. It's one big personal attack and lies and trolling. Simanos (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of this users conduct we have a civility policy that should be followed to prevent needless friction between editors. Personally i tend to evade quoting this specific policy as much as possible because it is so often used in edit wars as a means to shut an opposing party up, but in this case i feel it is warranted. Have a look at your edit - In four lines of text you accused him of trolling, sockpuppeting, veiled insults and lying while also indicating you will not be reading further correspondence from him.

Thus i would ask, what exactly does your edit add to the overall discussion? Regardless of whether or not it is correct it only serves to inflame the other party who will respond in kind Ad infinitum which solves absolutely nothing. If you believe the other party is still sockpuppeting take it to SPA. If you believe the other party is overly rude take it to WQA and if you believe that this is a case where you cannot agree on an editing dispute please take it to DR. But don't start accusing each other over and over as again - that will solve nothing at all.

Regardless, i will not be striping or removing the warning. I would advice you to have a look at your own conduct as well, as you received two incivility warnings in a very short time - along with several comments on WQA stating that your edits are hostile. Maybe you don't even intend them to be, but people experience them to be as such. If you believe i am wrong you are of course free to create an ANI thread regarding my conduct as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You still fail to answer that the NPA article states: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I did not accuse him of anything without evidence. Feel free to try and prove so. Simanos (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What I added to the discussion was to rebut the laughable claims of a known troll and sock-puppeteer that others were being aggressive. What do you expect? People unjustly accused by trolls to remain silent? How about you do your job and remove his comments (spam most of it) block him and maybe even ban him? Simanos (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This warning will be just another badge of honour for me. Just like the last one that lead to a dispute that I won. You have been warned by others as being too strict in your NPA policy. So it's not just me. You would do well to heed our advice and dwell on that for a while instead of brandishing around your new admin powers thoughtlessly. I will not take this matter further since your warning was just pointless anyway, but I suggest that you try and do something useful with your adminship and investigate some users that are really being disruptive and aggressive in those pages. There's already a new ANI about one of them I think, you could do one on the other to rack up your ban-points ;p (just kidding) Simanos (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never received any warning regarding my NPA policy, what i stated is simply a code of conduct i adhere to on my own initiative to prevent needless "You have been uncivil" warnings from my direction. The rare times where i actually DO warn a user for it are the occasions where i feel they are warranted, as it was, and is, in your case.

Furthermore I find your rationale strange. It is as if you cherish the previous conflict for the sake of conflict itself. There is no "Winning" or "Losing" a conflict, there is only consensus building. For the record, the WQA case was apparently closed as being stale which simply means that the problem solved itself - there is no judgment case towards either side. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I meant that some other people (for example in your review for admin-ship) have stated a similar thing. I failed at expressing it a bit. You still fail to prove I was accusing anyone without evidence and you avoid to comment on it. Why is that? Can't admit your mistakes? Simanos (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I could say the same about your rationale and your reluctance to admit your mistakes. Furthermore I'm not cherishing "winning", I'm cherishing the triumphs of logic and truth. For the record when someone is accused of something and doesn't get punished it pretty much is a "not guilty" verdict, however you like to spin it. As you can see I'm being civil and logical here despite your false warning and your veiled insults to my personality through pop-psychology. Simanos (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to the oppose vote by crafty which provided a diff from two years ago? You may wish to read the full section in that discussion, as it actually concludes quite the opposite. I am not sure why you are using the multitude "People" though, as i cannot remember being involved in any civility-based conflict in a very long time. Of course you are free to prove me wrong with some diffs :).

As i said before, your warning is a civility warning. Edits such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] serve no purpose other then to inflame a debate while provoking more incivility from the other party. The Spade essay explicitly differentiates between "just tell it like it is." and incivility. There is a difference between stating someone is a convicted sockpuppet (Which is fine) and creating entire posts riddled with uncivil content including that statement. Again, if you believe that Dragan is being disruptive take it to DR or ANI and see to it that it is solved. But don't start a mud-throwing competition. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I did not do a complete study of your behaviour, don't flatter yourself. Perhaps it was the following:

27. Weak Support - I'm not as overly wild about this as perhaps others above are; I don't really like the "vandals reported" bit on your activity list on your user page for example. Maintaing "strict policies on personal attacks" are, well, perhaps something you need to reflect on - one man's personal attack is another man's honest critique. However on balance no likely misuse / abuse of tools. The oppose arguments (at the time of writing) are exceptionaly poor. Pedro : Chat 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You also say "in general we can assume that anything similar to a personal attack page is not constructive." so I urge you to take another look at Draganparis talk page again which is a clear personal attack page on a few editors. And since you link/quote my edits there I know you've been there once already. Also you STILL fail to answer my question about "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.". Why is that? Too proud to admit your mistakes or to face the truth? See? I can do pop-psychology too if you want to go down that road (with your insults about me wanting to "win" instead of just wanting to discuss). Another thing you fail to own up to.

With that in mind I checked all the links you gave to my alleged "attacks" but I could see no crossing the line on my part in any of them. I could explain each and every one of your new false accusations links if you'd like, but I'd also ask that you do the same first so I could see your objection to each case separately. You must prove your case with more than just your say-so's. My contention is that they are all fine. And I find it misleading on your part to just link random stuff and try to create the appearance of attacks on my part. Simanos (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, another admin goes silent instead of admitting his error... Simanos (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

..."attAntion"...

Thx GK (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you bow to threats the terrorists win

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_%28South_Park%29 Enough said Simanos (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Daily Show (kinda weak though) Simanos (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC) http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-22-2010-zoe-saldana

Comment from an uninvolved party

Simanos, I've looked at your comments on talkpages.

You're acting like someone who has a tumor on his adrenal glands and therefore always feels angry and under attack. You are acting like someone who is expecting to be in a physical fight very soon.

Please understand that this is not the case. I would like you to read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, an essay which makes a serious point but in a manner designed to be humorous. DS (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you really need the tumor analogy? Is that how you diffuse situations? Or is your attempt at pop-psychology the way? Please no more of that. As for the humorous page I'm glad you have a sense of humour, but perhaps you can use it when reading some of my "controversial" edits. Fair enough? Simanos (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

From the mastodon article: "Some people use humor as a weapon. Other times a joke just falls flat or an insecure editor perceives a hidden insult. In the spirit of assuming good faith, ask for clarification before taking offense." Simanos (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm serious. You're acting like someone who's experiencing a near-constant overdose of adrenaline. DS (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're serious? I thought you were being humorous. I know I was ;p Simanos (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW I'm a bit of a hypochondriac so you'll be forcing me to go to the doctor about this. What causes overproduction of adrenaline other than tumours? Simanos (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an involved party

Telling to somebody what above editor said to Simanos is insulting and should be not permitted on Wikipedia. However, the most frequent cause for high catecholamines (including adrenaline) in blood or locally, is stress. So the reasons for stress are multiple but still more frequently they are psychological. It is hard to find the causes of the psychological stress and therapy mostly consists in changing the way of life and introducing stress reducing exercises, or in the extreme cases, medicamentouse therapy (sedatives). But I am sure that Simanos can manage without medication.

Now to the last comment of Simanos. Dear Simanos, when you invite me, I have to answer, this is good manners. Yes, I was condemned for disruptive editing 1 (one) time and had 2 days block, and for sockpuppetry I was condemned 1 (one) time and had 2 weeks block. To say something different from this, as you do, is not to tell the truth. But to tell ME “Stop lying to yourself and others”, what you say, is an insult.

Now, a comment to an almost a friend. You Simanos commented above to Nedko’s valuable appeal not to use ad hominem arguments by: “Do you even know what Ad Hominum means? (…) Read some wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom "The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument" Simanos (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)”. Well, you fall in a "googwik" trap.

You see, the citation that you gave comes rightly from Wikipedia page on ad hominem fallacy, where the fallacy is, unfortunately, badly described (typical Wikipedia article). What missled you was a false citation which you did not verify. The rule is to verify all citations. (This is what prompt me to object to Anothroskon who imports citations from the propaganda sites without verifying them.) Here this is reference 2: Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. pp. 190. Walton in fact does not say this on page 190 (of this second edition from 2008) and says this NOWHERE in his book, because it is simply not true. A sentence that contains ad hominem close is in principle just a proposition which has it own truth value. But if it were used to affect some other argument it becomes relevant in quite specific sense. The condition for the argument ad hominem to be valid for the issue in question, is that the person attacked in the argument is relevant to the truth disputed in the issue in question (permitting the soundness of the argument in that dispute). If it is not, the argument is fallacious. Walton in facts writes, but on the page 170: "The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.” Therefore, my dear “friend” if you think, for example, that the truth of the supposition that the Eastern Roman Empire was or was not called “Greece” in the 10th century, would depend on how often I, who uttered one of these two, was condemned for sockpuppeting, it is valid to disapprove my contentions about this by reminding me on my sockpuppetry case. However, the name of the Byzantium does not depend on my being sockpuppeter. Therefore you are committing a fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. There you displayed typical googwik delusion of knowledge. ("Little knowledge is dangerous thing" was right to say, wasn't it?) This illustrating need that we, you and I and other decent people, try to establish correct and good Wikipedia articles. And this is why we dispute, and why we should do this in a decent way. So do not say to the people “You are lying”. All what you achieve if you would say this is that you reveal to others how primitive you may be, how little you know, and how weak your arguments are. But at least you are not, I am certain, a primitive man. You are just shy to show your real normal human face and defective knowledge. Therefore, read Wikipedia, but read books too. Now you can go to the ad hominem page and introduce the corrections that I suggested. This will improve Wikipeadia. O. K.?Draganparis (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC).Draganparis (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So basically the only error is it's page 170 and not 190. Why do you say "NOWHERE" when clearly it is somewhere?

"The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument" is pretty similar to "The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.”

You seem confused as usual. As far as I am concerned I mention your PROVEN trolling, sock-puppetry, disruptiveness when you have the nerve to tell others to calm down and not use "strong" words. And a bit further down you obliquely call another editor racist again. I find it very hypocritical and so your past IS relevant (and I avoid a fallacy). I'm not saying illogical stuff like "you're a homosexual so your opinion on special relativity is obviously wrong". My facts make sense and support my position. When the goal is to form a consensus, the past (and present) of disruptive editor is relevant. And please don't tell me you haven't used tons and tons of ad homs yourself. I dare you!

Please stop using the term googwik because you've already used it too much (you wore it out) and it just creates more bad blood (not to mention it makes you look foolish, even though you think you're perfect, you're not). I'm not your errand boy so feel free to correct any article you like yourself, it's not beneath you and neither am I. And take your own advice about your human face and defective knowledge. Simanos (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, no. The expressions "is not" and "is not always" can not be taken to be "pretty similar". They are pretty OPPOSITE. The first affirms that "a" is NOT "b". The second affirms that "a" is (almost always) "b", i.e. that the occasions when the first close is the case, that "a" is NOT "b", is very rare. So again, these are pretty opposite affirmations. Do not be offended. I am certainly not saying that you are stupid. You just did not pay enough attention to the problem of logic. Concentrate more next time and you will solve similar problems easily.

Wrong again. The "ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument" means it is an argument that can sometimes be fallacious (doesn't say how many times, we can't calculate that anyway). The "argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious" means it is not fallacious in some cases. It doesn't say if it's an argument or a fallacy directly, but if it was a fallacy then it would be always fallacious. Therefore it does not contradict the first sentence at all except in your confused mind. You add "(almost always)" in your reasoning, but that clearly is your own value judgement and not valid reasoning based on the premises (even if probably true, very hard to quantify it though). Do not be offended. I am certainly not saying that it's better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. You just paid too much attention to an easy problem of logic and over-analyzed it, over-thunk it. Concentrate more on the problem next time and less on obliquely insulting people and creating a false sense of rightness for yourself. I'm sure you will meet less problems that way. ;p Simanos (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But I have to disappoint you: I do not remember using the arguments ad homminem on Wikipedia or insulting people. I use sarcasm sometimes, this is true. But I never told somebody to be lying, for example. I say that they say something what is not true. This is not an insult. I was condemned for “disruptive editing”. Since the accusations (and may be the decision) were made by the “members” of the politically biased people who apparently are neighbors and have obviously very similar political motivation, THEN the characterization as “disruptive editing” probably refers in reality to “objective” or “different” opinion. On the other hand, sockpuppeting is not a crime, just a formal violation of the local rules of Wikipedia which you, for example, also violate by your and your companions' concerted editing. For example now, the others are inactive. Why? May be because they are not 4 or 6 but just two people using 6 different locations. Two people can not keep 6 computers active all the time. So, now, just "Anathroskon" and "Simanos" are active. And very soon, the others will jump in, but these two will be less active... Because the 6 editors are fictitious and just two cannot maintain frequency of editing to dissimulate 6 active editors. Interesting?

OK that's complete trolling behaviour right there. You constantly spam in every second post of yours accusations about me and other editors that we are sock-puppets or meat-puppets. Even if you were right, which you are not, even if the investigation had proven you right, they would still be ad hom arguments on your part. Except that your ad homs are fallacious because the investigation didn't prove anything, unlike ours which the investigations proved were right. Deal with it. You've been caught (with your pants down). I could also name various other instances of where you use ad homs and insults, even in this very page you say it is easy to prove how stupid I am, though you do say it requires imagination, a slip of the tongue (you probably meant something else), but it showcases how drawn into your delusions of conspiracy theories and cabals you've sadly become. Interesting? ;) Simanos (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The expression "GOOGWIK" is my invention (which I introduced about 2 years ago on Wikipedia pages) and I will use it when I want it and would assign the meaning to it as I wish. This designates a presumed scientist who uses mainly information from Google and Wikipedia. This may be quite important intellectual activity and I introduced it as slightly pejorative for “scientist” who uses mostly other sources (books, scientific articles, libraries, expert data bases etc). You, I just presume, learn from Google and Wikipedia and do not show much of interest to use other sources for your education, like books, so you may be a typical "gooogwik". Excuse me if I am wrong, but you did not show any evidence of using some books or other literature. The style of Anothroskon - to borrow the list of literature from nationalistic pages and dump them on the discussion pages is NOT how one should use literature. Important point: You have seen yourself how one Wikipedia reference could be wrong and that you have to verify it. If even Wikipedia article on logic, which is so neutral politically, has erroneous references, what could be expected then to be on the propaganda nationalistic pages? These are called "unreliable sources" and should not be accepted as proofs in serious scientific discussions. On Wikipedia - why not - if Wikipedia is a political platform for the exchanges of political pamphlets, coursing, accusations, insults. But is it? Draganparis (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Clear case of delusions of grandeur. I'm sorry my friend that you have come to this state, that you feel the world revolves around you. It's sad that you make some good points about sources and scientific method, but you spoil it all with your childish behaviour and megalomania. I'm not that useful in producing sources (further proving I'm not the same man as others, as if it needed it), I'm more of a logical thinking editor that deals with interpreting what is said. I'm not going to respond to you any more, since feeding a troll apparently accomplishes little and the community has been made aware of your shortcomings. I await the justified block to be put upon you again and nothing more. I'm leaving for another city anyway so I will be inactive for at least a week. Simanos (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. Simanos says:

1. The "ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument" means it is an argument that can sometimes be fallacious (doesn't say how many times, we can't calculate that anyway).

(I must add, right. In the other words: IT IS NOT FALLACIOUS IN MOST OF THE CASES).

And he adds

2. The "argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious" means it is not fallacious in some cases

(I would rephrase it in an affirmative form to match the sentence above: IT IS FALLACIOUS IN MOST OF THE CASES)

Conclusions: Just opposite to Simanos' conclusion, these are obviously two quite contradictory statements.

Yes, Simanos remarked very well indeed that "how often" in the first sentence, may be important for characterizing it to be a contradiction to the second. However, the first statement says explicitly that the argument is NOT a fallacy, and the second that IT IS a fallacy (not always, but presumably most of the time), therefore these examples add to our conclusion that the two affirmations are quite contradictory.

I do not know what made Simanos so furious to attack me again ad hominem in these above 3 paragraphs? I am sorry if I put something in a way that you Simanos understood wrongly as an insult. This has not been my intention. I will also make a brake now for some time.Draganparis (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh I'm still here, though I probably shouldn't. You changed my "analyse" to "analyze". I typed it with a "z" too, but my Nazi British spell checker changed it. I guess yours is American.

Oh, btw no matter how many times you say they are contradictory it does not make it so. Look up the definition of contradictory if you want (it does not mean dissimilar). I did not say that how often was important. I said the opposite. That it was irrelevant. Please try and keep up. Reread it again if you must. The second statement does not say IT IS a fallacy. It says that it can be fallacious. If it was a fallacy then it would ALWAYS be fallacious. How hard is that to understand? It's OK to admit you are wrong on a tiny issue like this man. Don't be an angry mastodon trying to "win". ;p

Also I have to laugh at your disingenuous claim that I attacked you again with ad hominem arguments. I was merely copy-pasting your own insults to point how YOU were insulting and trolling and a hypocrite. How on Earth can you miss that? Simanos (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you are there! Sorry, I saw some spelling mistakes and corrected automatically and did not see that this was your text. My spell check is American, but I tend to write British English. Sorry again. But how interesting, you used my text! Could you please mark which words are mine? Simanos! I did NOT say you are stupid!!! Go and read it again! To logic: It will be easier if you give some values to the part "most of the cases". Say 95%, and then look its meaning again. You will see that it is perfect contradiction. Enjoy your trip.Draganparis (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark which words are yours? Do it yourself, don't be lazy (lol you told me that too once, "don't be lazy"). BTW look up a bit (OK a lot):

Do you think I can not do the same? Explain how stupid you are, for example? This will not need much of imagination to show. Draganparis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

You said that a few days ago, I replied then and I added some more today. Simanos (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh as for the logic argument please drop it and save what dignity you have left. Your latest blunder is equating 95% with perfection. I'm not saying they are identical or equivalent statements, but they are clearly not contradictions. Even 5% chance (which is a figure you pull out of thin air) for them both being true means there is no absolute contradiction (there might be contraindication). Do I have to draw you a Venn diagram? Simanos (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you write that rubbish on my talk page and on the page of the administrator? Are YOU really such a person?Draganparis (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rubbish" is such a strong word. I prefer "truth". Then again you do treat "truth" like "rubbish" so I can see where you're coming from ;p Simanos (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"They all laughed at me when I said I'd be a comedian someday. Well, they're not laughing now!" Simanos (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry for "rubbish". You have this one. But you wrote really BAD THINGS about me. Why?Draganparis (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is a weird note Draganparis... Seems broken. Simanos (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Because of your frontal attack on me I missed your "Venn diagram". No, it could not help. Our argument has two parts. The first part of both arguments are in obvious contradiction (to confirming them both at the same time is contradiction). The second part contains "possibilities". This is not ordinary, Aristotelian logic. But I am certain as a good "Wiki" expert you will find the corresponding article. I will not tell you of course which one. Although to understand it is not so easy. And then (to continue) you have a combination of two arguments in each of them. I admit, I saw later (while you were wrong to say that both arguments state the same) that the problem was not so easy. Sorry. But try to solve it.Draganparis (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A Venn diagram could help, but I won't bother. Your analysis is once again a big confusing fail. Look up "contradiction" please. Enjoy your ban oops I mean retirement... Simanos (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And I copied this what you wrote on GK Talk page. Is this something nice about me? Try in the ancient Greek, I might understand. The new Greek is hard. You see , I do not know exactly everything, as you suspected.

Den tin paleuoun mia. Me exoun priksei:

admin fail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#Decisive_Victory

admin fail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simanos#False_warning

admin fail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simanos#Comment_from_an_uninvolved_party

DP chastises admin fail properly, but then does a logic fail :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simanos#Comment_from_an_involved_party

Leo na ta paratiso gia ligo. Exo ena kainourgio project na parousiaso se powerpoint kai biazomai (me kourasan). Pes mou (sto talk page mou) please to apotelesma apo to DP ANI case otan bgei ama apofasisoun na stamatisoun ton strouthokamilismo oi admins... :( Simanos (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much, just saying I am busy Simanos (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Draganparis ANI case

It seems that DP really overdid it this time... These legal threats he made against everybody made more admins occupy themselves with him. He was indefed. GK (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He retracted and the ban was revoked GK (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Persian Gate

Hello Simanos. Unfortunately I cannot comment upon the reliability or anything, really, of Encylopedia Iranica, because I am just an uninvolved editor who noted your edit while patrolling recent changes. One way or another, some editors did not agree with you, and unfortunately, nobody decided to resolve the issue to come to some sort of consensus about what the text should say. I'm going to ping Kansas Bear @Kansas Bear: so you can possibly discuss this again, and hopefully come to agreement. Also @Aṭlas: and @HistoryofIran:. Sorry, just noted now that you posted on my talk page. I would have put a reply there if I realised you had posted there before I started this. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about it. It's just some old POV pushers. Read the Iranica text please: "Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185)."Simanos (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)