== Dont take things personally. U R lowering the level here friend... == 

  
 Talking of bad english... This phrase does seem to make sense. Am i not entitle to change it? Seems not.  

 (In any case between you and me there is no seperate history and if you beleive so please make some reffereces to you sources). 

 The lack of refferences is quite evident in the whole of the text. I do not see why i should provide bibliography for altering (in good faith) passages that state important but in a way unaccurate facts and do not have any reffences to back them up.  
 In any case, i will do so if anyone asks me for it but i wont lose my time when it seems that certain people are quite satisfied with their wotk and do not accept comments and corrections.(but if this is the case they should not write here, really) 

 As for the ancient period paragraph. It is quite misleading since it does not refer to ancient times at all. Propably should exclude all the passage from text. It is indeed a controversial article and a very amusing one to follow up, from its creation to the seemingly result. Is like drafting a treaty between hostal tribes. The fact that large parts of the outcome derive from original contributions with very clear, highly nationalistic positions for the one (mostly) and the other side is absolutely charming.  

 Considering all that, i think that i propably could lower my expectations but of course not abandon them. This article has flaws and can be improved. The fact that is controversial should not be considered a problem. There is no thing like status quo ante in wiki as far as i know. In any case my alterations reffer to comonly accepted facts undisputed by all sides. 
 I will sincerely continue keeping you company in your efforts. 
 Thanks in advance 
 Haas 

 ps: i am not a freak nationalist. The choice of words should be more carefull. You are lowering the level here Bomac 
 (and may i add: an impresseive page, wow! I wonder if you can tell the same thing for yourself...)