User talk:Esslet

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Florina

By investigating the recent changes I've noticed that a recently created wp:SPA account jumped into the article creating much disruption (selective use of 19th century travel accounts, source falsification etc.). Feel free to inform me in case something similar happens again.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I will, thank you! Esslet (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Balkan placename issues

Hello Esslet, forgive me that I have been quite busy lately. It seems I didn't explain myself clearly. If you are not aware, being an apparently new editor and all, edit warring over placenames on Balkan pages has been a problem afflicting Wikipedia for over a decade. Every nationality wants their language on as many placenames as possible and uses whatever excuses to get it there. In the meantime, non Balkan editors find the entire thing exasperating as the prose is suddenly interrupted by a cluster of placenames in different languages, all for the same place, disrupting their reading. This complaint has been made many times, and personally I find it annoying.

Don't get me wrong-- at times it is helpful. For someone looking for more information on Thessaloniki, for example, it is notable that it was often called Salonica (the Sephardi Jewish name), and similarly Argyrokastro (Greek) for Gjirokaster, when both are in appropriate name sections. But there are times that it is very much the opposite of helpful. One example [[1]] is having "Eparxia Konispolis" for Konispol(i). Nobody cares at all, except maybe a couple Greek editors.

Furthermore, is the name even valid? Is it actually an "eparxia"? Does it actually use that term for itself? The article is in fact about the city which is exclusively inhabited by Muslim Cham Albanians who speak Greek as a second language if at all. The municipal administrative unit doesn't have a page and even this municipal administrative unit was invented in 2015 so it has no Greek history to speak of, and afaik it doesn't use Greek as an administrative language. This is unlike Pustec municipality, which actually uses Macedonian, or Dropull, which uses Greek. The Albanian language version is only useful because of its use in Albanian government documents, which use Albanian. For most readers (non-Balkan, Greeks will more likely read Greek Wikipedia I assume), what they would consider to be a cluster of "math symbols" is distracting and unnecessary at best.

Also, while I believe you that you are not a "nationalist", doing edits like this will antagonize Albanian editors (I am not one), because of things like this. Wikipedia can be a minefield, sadly, but it's really much more fun to get along. --Yalens (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. while "Konispol" can look Greek in origin, in this case it is in fact Slavic, as is detailed on the page itself-- so please don't try to use this as an argument for including Greek language versions. --Yalens (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It gives me an opportunity to clear some things up, although I'm not sure what to think of the title you chose.

---

Sorry sometimes I get facetious on wiki talkpages when I'm bored :). Admitted character flaw. Changing title to a more bland name. I'm responding inline using indent to differentiate as it's easier that way.

• "It seems I didn't explain myself clearly." On what matter? Have we talked before about anything, I don't remember. Forgive me as well, it's been really busy for me already and it's going to get busier soon, so...

---

On Konispol. We reverted each other. And yeah, myself as well. Best of luck with it (school?).

Nope, not school, this is over for some years now... Best of luck to you too.

• "edit warring over placenames on Balkan pages has been a problem afflicting Wikipedia for over a decade." Yes I realise that and Resnjari seems to have contributed to that greatly during the years according to his history.
• "Every nationality wants their language on as many placenames as possible and uses whatever excuses to get it there." All I can say about that is that it's not true about me(see below as well for more on that), maybe for someone else it is.

---

I chose to comment on your talk page because I don't actually think you're a crazy Balkan nationalist unlike some editors on here, and wanted to open a dialogue. As explained below, there are reasons why certain Albanian editors may be coming to other mistaken conclusions.

Thank you but the only person you need to talk to about the situation that has been created is Resnjari, as I explained in my previous reply.

• "In the meantime, non Balkan editors find the entire thing exasperating as the prose is suddenly interrupted by a cluster of placenames in different languages, all for the same place, disrupting their reading." Yes I can see that, but the wiki policy clearly allows it(maybe change that?) and, to be honest, in most cases multiple names are in fact necessary for historical reasons and also helpful at times, as you wrote as well. However, the number of names some users add(1,2, 3, and many more, I just don't have the time rn nor I want to) for their own reasons is annoying(at best, very best...).

---

Imo some of these are useful, others not so much. The adding of Turkish to various towns in the Balkans I personally find annoying but as it's typically a point in ongoing skirmishes between certain Albanian and Greek editors I tend not to interfere as I don't see my interference there leading to positive results. Imo it's only necessary when there's an Ottoman Turkish name that differs significantly from the other ones (i.e. Ergiri for Gjirokaster/Argyrokastro, that's actually necessary). It's also much less annoying when they're in appropriate name sections, rather than in the lead section.

• About the Konispol matter, as far as I know the Greek translation of the word 'municipality' is 'eparxia'. The article you mention seems to be not only about the town, but for the municipality as well where a Greek minority lived and still lives. Now, about the "math sumbols", we are talking about a total of just 2 words here, so I don't see how this is that much distracting nor do I understand why we are talking about this.

---

Yes, see this is the issue. There's no evidence that the Konispol municipality is actually called eparxia by anyone but Wikipedia editors. And the issue isn't so much Konispol, it's that if this is allowed to become commonplace then it will appear everywhere for any administrative unit that has some minority population. And then we'd have a situation where it's like the Greek-Turkish placename wars in the Republic of Macedonia (not the Greek province) where there are somehow now redundant Turkish and Greek placenames in areas with zero Turkish or Greek population.

I agree, but this is not the case here with Konispol.

• I did not really understand your point about the Peshkëpi killing...

---

The Peshkepi killing was linked because it is an episode in what Albanians consider to be terrorist actions by Greek nationalists trying to claim North Epirus. Things like this are the source of what I would call Albanian paranoia about Greece (my own POV here). North Epirote irredentism (from the Albanian perspective this is kind of like Donbass as Ukraine sees it...) complicates things here on wiki where although it is best to assume good faith, sadly a lot of people don't do so. I don't personally subscribe to this view that many Albanians have which occasionally veers into paranoia ("Greeks are trying for the 453517035th time to annex us"), but the fact is that there are some editors on Wikipedia who nearly exclusively edit articles in so-called "North Epirus" promoting the Greek character of the region which does arouse suspicions, rightly or not. Obviously that's actually justified in places like Pogon and Dropull and yes Himara and Narta too, because there are actually many Greeks there. But somehow Tepelena and Erseka and other places where there are few if any Greeks are also (attempted to be) portrayed as Greek minority areas, which makes the Albanian editor, and indeed many non-Albanian editors, wonder if there are irredentist motives at play. Indeed, the Albanian, upon reading that Erseka is somehow a "Greek" village (as has been claimed) is in shock as most people familiar with the town know there aren't really many ethnic Greeks there at all. Konispol is tricky because in the modern municipality, in the commune of Xarre, there actually are Greeks, but not in Konispol itself, which is a Cham village-- and the fact that it's Cham makes it particularly touchy (I'm sure you know why). Personally I support having Greek placenames in the Xarre villages that have Greeks. Kallivretakis has done a very extensive study on which ones these are, which is now added to the page (I believe, ironically, by Resnjari, it bears his typical prose style lol). To be fair, there is also occasional bullshit POV pushing from the Albanian side -- I myself have had to remove crap that was, for example, claiming that Y-haplogroup E1b1b was somehow an "Albanian" marker (sans sources) when it's held in large quantities by both Albanians and Greeks and there's more variance among both than between both on its frequency.

So at this point let me explain something. Even I don't really like what I'm ending up doing. This is not really me in the sense that I don't really care that much about whether or not an article in wikipedia regarding a village in Albania with a Greek minority includes the Greek name next to the Albanian one(although, of course, according to the policy this is totally acceptable), nor you gonna see me start adding Greek nationalistic propaganda in related articles(it can be easily found, just like the Albanian one). However, it seems that for some people like Resnjari things like that do matter and, in his case, he doesn't seem to be able to tolerate or handle anything about Greece and/or Greeks in articles related in any way, shape, or form with Albania and Albanians. This is where it starts to get annoying for me and the moment I realised this, it's when I started editing some articles back to their previous state, before Resnjari worked his 'magic' on them(I'm not saying not according to policy -in most cases, just in "smart" ways, to put it like that at best). Don't get me wrong, it's not(yet) personal, but I have no problem making it if this goes on any longer. All in all, if there is one person you need to address about this whole issue(going on for years(!) now), this person is Resnjari and anyone else using wikipedia and its policies in smart(I have to admit) ways to promote personal beliefs, not me. Please think about that and thank you for your time. Esslet (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC) ---

Imo I think you see your role as defensive here. I can understand that from the Greek perspective, it appears as if he pushes Albanian nationalism. After all, he does a lot of edits that emphasize the non-Greek demographic aspects of many territories around the border. If you look closer though, it's more complicated. Why would an Albanian nationalist do this [[2]]? There are much better examples I could pull up, but like you I don't have time. He's actually had spats with actual Albanian nationalists, and if he pushes any POV, it's the university-educated postmodern deconstructionist one with various quirky "devil's advocate" aspects, not exactly Albanian nationalism. Greeks accuse him of being an Albanian nationalist, Albanians have accused him of being pro-Greek at times (yes, this has happened) or pro-Turkish, and I've never witnessed it but I'm sure there exist people who have thought he was a (Slav) Macedonian.

Personally I disagree with him on a lot of things. But generally I think while he does have his own views, he does also make some effort to keep pages he edits balanced, sometimes to a fault in including sources with views challenging his. I'd actually say, when he's not seeing himself as on the defensive, he actually has a habit of being overly conciliatory and appeasing weird nationalist views on the other side, an issue I've brought up. Yes sometimes his own views seep into his writing on wiki as well but thankfully we have everyone else to even that out and prevent POV from getting to be too much. That applies with a lot of editors actually, especially on Balkan pages. In my opinion he does a lot more good than bad, and does a lot of expanding material where previously there was none. When he does appear to be edit warring a lot of the time it's because he perceives himself as being on the defensive side, just as you do. In general with Greek issues, he tends to think there is an attempt to cover up the non-Greek demographic character of various territories in the border regions. This is also for non-Albanian regions like Florina, which as we know was, although Greek in ancient times, predominantly linguistically Slavic in the late Ottoman period (although these are Slavs that at least in part identified as Greeks). Now it is obviously heavily Greek, but probably from his perspective the process of how it came to be so is under-discussed. Sometimes, maybe he goes too far, and then it causes other people to think he has some anti-Greek agenda, and then their actions may cause others to join in because they think that this reaction has an anti-whatever agenda. And then we have a nasty cycle.

In your case, he thinks you source falsified, and as far as I can tell that's where the actual issue between you two started, right? I haven't examined it much, don't have the time. Often when newbies are accused of source falsification it turns out they didn't understand that editing cited text makes it appear as if you're claiming the source says what you edited the page to say. As I said you don't come off to me as a crazy nationalist, otherwise it would be a waste of my time (and yours) to talk. I honestly think you two misunderstand each other (fault on both sides here), though maybe I'm just being naïve this whole time. Also, sorry this got excessively long. I'll try to trim it tomorrow if it's too much for you to reply to. I think there are much more constructive ways for you to do what you're trying to do. Gotta run though. Best with everything. --Yalens (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting way to answer, I've edited it a bit to be more clear if it's ok with you and I have also answered again below you. Now, it seems that you are trying to be neutral on this but I just saw your user page as well and although you might not be an Albanian editor as you said, you have written/edited numerous Albanian-related articles and Albanian maps, so I understand you have some special interest in this matter as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So first of all, I don't get your example. The answer is that yes, an Albanian nationalist who seems to hate Greece would be the first to remove the Greek name. The example you provided is actually a great one, showing how Resnjari works all this time. Him "having spats" with other Albanian nationalists I don't see how it proves anything. Now, if he has been accused of all these things maybe he should try keeping it down a bit, I guess that everyone else accusing him can't be crazy or delusional. Although, I would like to meet the guy who accused him of being pro-Greek and what did he base his claim on. "In general with Greek issues, he tends to think there is an attempt to cover up the non-Greek demographic character of various territories in the border regions." I know, that's his problem. No one is trying to do that and on the contrary he is the one actively adding or removing anything he likes or not, based on his beliefs of how certain things should be.

"Sometimes, maybe he goes too far, and then it causes other people to think he has some anti-Greek agenda, and then their actions may cause others to join in because they think that this reaction has an anti-whatever agenda. And then we have a nasty cycle." Nasty cycle indeed, one that is started and then maintained by him.

"In your case, he thinks you source falsified, and as far as I can tell that's where the actual issue between you two started, right?" That is correct, and then I started researching the guy's past and his years-long practice came up.

"I honestly think you two misunderstand each other" I have my opinion about him.

"I'll try to trim it tomorrow if it's too much for you to reply to." Please don't do that or it'll be a mess now that I've replied...

So, all in all and although I appreciate your time and our conversation, pardon me, but I don't understand if you are trying to tell me something here or what that is. I think that the person you should talk to, if anyone, is Resnjari, as I noted at the end of my previous reply as well. Esslet (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to "correct" you by saying yes, I do have interest in Albanian affairs -- academic interest. Scandalous, I know. Yes, I have edited Albanian articles. Since when is spending time expanding the coverage of undercovered areas of the world in and of itself something to be ashamed of?

The diff I provided shows Resnjari deleting Manastir (Albanian name) and replacing it with Bitola (Mac.). Not a rabid Albo-nationalist action. And no, when you're on wiki long enough editing controversial areas you tend to have spats with whatever SPA accounts or even randos that show up as they tend to be hotheaded and very angry when their narrowminded POVs aren't reflected on the page. Resnjari especially as much of what he does is including the representation of unconventional views of history. I for example have been called a "mother fucking Greek little shit" (I doubt you're wondering, but I'm not Greek either). In Resnjari's case he uses Greek sources a lot and does have certain individual views that when considered in isolation happen to line up with Greek nationalist views, so other Albanians (hotheaded ones) have taken issue with that. This all says more about Wikipedia (sadly) than the victim of accusations really.

But I can see this isn't going anywhere. What I'm trying to say, in my dumb way of saying it, is if you don't want to come off as a nationalist, don't act like one. It's not a fun way to be on Wikipedia and it only comes around to bite you in the end. Don't edit source-attributed lines to say things that aren't stated in said source. Don't add controversial statements without a (good) source. You know, the whole shpiel. Efxaristo. --Yalens (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Since when is spending time expanding the coverage of undercovered areas of the world in and of itself something to be ashamed of?" Ashamed of? Never said you should be ashamed(!) of expanding articles, not at all. Your contributions are remarkable.

"The diff I provided shows Resnjari deleting Manastir (Albanian name) and replacing it with Bitola (Mac.)." Well, 'Monastiri' is also a Greek name for the town and anyways I never said that each and every one of his contributions is nationalistic and/or pro-Albanian. Just that his overall image and behaviour is negative, in my opinion.

"when you're on wiki long enough editing controversial areas you tend to have spats with whatever SPA accounts or even randos that show up" Well I can totally see that, and that's exactly why such people's claims and accusations are not to be taken seriously and, at the same time, edits on controversial areas should be careful and modest.

"In Resnjari's case he uses Greek sources a lot and does have certain individual views that when considered in isolation happen to line up with Greek nationalist views" I have to say I never witnessed anything even close to that in the last weeks nor his past seems to support that.

"if you don't want to come off as a nationalist, don't act like one." This exact sentence should be on Resnjari's page. As I also wrote in a previous reply, I understand how this might seem to be the case(in an initial, shallow reading), but if you look just a little closer you'll see that I'm reverting(or trying to) the POV(at best) edits by this particular user. My role is defensive here, never added any material(controversial or not) except a sentence, while he on the other hand seems to be adding controversial(or not) material with often undue attention to his own views, "smart" segregation of the text and making an effort to "hide" info he doesn't like through prominence of placement and depth of detail for POV-propaganda reasons. All that is against policy and this seems to happen all the time and for many years now and based on your previous replies you seem to have noticed that as well but, still, you are addressing me.(Again, I highly appreciate your time but I'm not the one you should talk to).

"Don't edit source-attributed lines to say things that aren't stated in said source. Don't add controversial statements without a (good) source." Not sure if you are generally speaking here or implying I did any of these things, but just to be sure I'll go on and say that I was careful not to edit by altering any source and not to add any controversial statements(with or without a good source) recognizing that we are dealing with some delicate issues here. I'm finally expecting the same behaviour by Resnjari, but, sadly, I don't bet on that. Esslet (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

To be clear-- I didn't accuse you of those, but obv Resnjari did. As I can't be bothered to look through massive walls of text (hypocrisy acknowledged) I have no opinion on the matter. And I appreciate that-- sorry for misunderstanding. Happy editing. --Yalens (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Digital television transition

I’m sorry for what I did 2 days ago; I wanted to change the edit about Hong Kong because it says it WAS completed in December 1 2020 but I messed up and changed your edit so I wanted to apologise. Wikisalowam537 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for your message. You did well on correcting that Hong Kong paragraph. Take care! --Esslet (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ArtyomSokolov (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)