User talk:Georalex1

Corinth

It's antiscientific to divide the historical data of any locations into ancient and modern period without confirming the reason you did so. Any reader (internationally) who is searching for "Corinth" has the will to face the whole history of the location (as in any encyclopedia). In any case you destroyed the "disambiguation" link. Your changes are scientifically unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.37.197 (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Antiscientific? We are talking about two separate entities that don't even share the same location. It is a fact that the city now known as Corinth was founded in 1858 after the village surrounding the ruins of Ancient Corinth was destroyed in an earthquake. The two settlements are 5km apart. You mightn't be aware of that from Rome/Italy, where I believe you are writing from, but it is very clear to me, a resident of New Corinth. If you wish to debate this further, then I suggest you sign up to Wikipedia and contribute like everyone else.--Damac (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As I told you you destroyed the total disambinguation link. And you don't have the right to do so. And you made nothing to correcy it! Then all the other Wikipedia's in any other language they don't have this unscientific classification order. So you alter the whole concept of Wikipedia. I am not speaking about Rome (you suggested well about Ialy), but about Vibo Valentia, Taranto, Venice, Gaza, London etc. all of them shared distances between the ancient and the modern cities) Is there any encyclopedia that presents your "type" of categorisation as you did???? Can you find any difference between Corinth and ancient Corinth in Britanica or Larrouse or Columbia encyclopedia, Unfortunatelly, your idea is fully unacceptable. 5 Km distance is not a distance that differ the location, You must point out this fact but you didn't have the right to alter the facts. Then you pointed out that you speak about Ancient Corinth but in fact but you also present as ancient Corinth the Roman one, the Eastern Roman one (Byzantine) and even the Ottoman period, Anyway this matter the way you present it is incorrect and antiscientific. I contribute via the name georalex1 but unfortunatelly in this location, I am now, my Internet is difficult for a complete use!!!!

I don't think I've destroyed anything - enough of the hyperbole, please. Most of the material that was in the article on Corinth was the exact same as the material in the Ancient Corinth article. This was unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, in the article on Corinth, there was hardly anything about the modern city. The fact is that Neo Korinthos, to give it the name it was referred to for decades, was founded in 1858. Indeed, in 2008, the city celebrated its 150th anniversary.

I would invite you to consider how the Greek-language Wikipedia deals with the issue: compare the difference between the article on Κόρινθος[1] and Αρχαία_Κόρινθος[2]. You'll also see that the disambiguation on the Greek project is almost identical to the wording I use.

Again, I invite you to use the proper procedures for dealing with disputes on Wikipedia. I see that you're new to the project. You've been here four days and have contributed to a dozen or so articles; I've been here for over five years and have contributed to over 10,000, and have rarely had to deal with the type of hostile approach you are taking.--Damac (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but again you are wrong here... I do respect your Job in Wikipedia. But I don't criticize it generaly.. There is not any place in Greece which is called Nea Korinthos as you wrote! The official name of the city was ever Korinthos and still is! In fact They were four exact locations for Korinthos: a)Prehistoric, Mycenean, Archaic, Classic in Acrokorinthos, b)Roman and early Byzantine for the place where St. Paul preached (in fact just in the edge of Modern Korinthos), c) Middle Ages (again Akrokorinthos) d) Ottoman (near Isthmus) and e) Modern which in fact is identical with Roman Korinthos. Which is ancient and Modern Corinth for you??? Really I invite you to Korinthos... Be my guest! Have you ever been there?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georalex1 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Μενώ εδώ στην Κόρινθο!!!! Can we please continue this discussion here--Damac (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol... It sounds all greek to me... I have had to understand that you were a Greek for only some Greeks have the strange attitude to cut the past from the present in presenting their history or (the opposite) to fight for it!! I don't want to interfere in this problem because this is not my problem. If some of you Greeks have a problem with your history it's an ideological fact that has nothing to do with the history of a place for an objective reader. Anyway for a better understanding of what the rest of the world is doing for the history of any location look at wikipedia on Montreal, London and History of London, Moscow and History of Moscow, Kyoto, Vilnius, Paris, Jericho, Amman, Jerusalem, Mexico City etc. etc. (thousands times)!!!!! Only the Greek edition for example and some Greek writers (I suppose) distinguish between Sparta and Sparti, a fact very strange for me. As I told you I don’t have any problem with the continuity between past and present but as a reader I would like to be objectively informed about the history of a name or a locality. Anyway I respect your problems with your history and I don’t want any more to be into this… The way "student 7" solved the problem in some way satisfies me…, although that I would rather comment that "Ottoman Corinth" is not exactly Ancient Corinth. But as Greeks say : Ὑγίαινε καὶ χαῖρε! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georalex1 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Greek, but I live in Greece. My views have nothing to do with my nationality.--Damac (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I can afford this!!! (lol).. But honestly Damac this is not my problem. I have nothing with your nationality, Greek or whatever. You created here a huge problem for the readers of WIKIPEDIA, as I am one of them... For example go to Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the link to Corinth takes you to the modern municipality! All the thousands links indicating the section Corinth in WIKIPEDIA and are reffering to the so called Roman Corinth are leading the readers towards the Modern Municipality... Any bible reader or a researcher of Proto-Christian era is going to be confused because you personally have the strange philosophy to cut out the historical past from a location. This is absolutely antiscientific and creates a huge problem which has nothing to do with an academic classification but is purely ideology! Not Science! Your way in intervening in ths article id scientifically obscure! If you have any objection that Ancient Corinth has something to do with Modern Corinth, then point it out but in the section Corinth. Splitting, Merging and Diversifying is purely a scientific method and not a method of ideology or fair personal opinion! You have not the right to create a mess for the readers of WIKIPEDIA who from Syracuse, Sicily are redirected not to "Corinth" (as it was indicated) but to the Modern Town. This is someway a fictionic intervention. You have not any right to create a chaos to the readers! If you just dare do the same as you did to "poor" Corinth to Montreal, London and History of London, Moscow and History of Moscow, Kyoto, Vilnius, Paris, Jericho, Amman, Jerusalem, Mexico City and then we shall see together the reaction of the readers and the academics. Please be rational, don't mix science with fiction, personal ideas and ideology. And please answer to me with your scientific objections to my arguments. Ὑγίαινε καὶ χαῖρε!

You are right. We are going to have to do "something" at this point. We need(ed) about 75% of this discussion on the Corinth discussion page. Hopefully, you and Damac can continue the discussion there. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)