User talk:Othon I/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Othon I, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Foreign relations of Greece has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sinas

I have to disagree with the lead section of him being presented as "Austrian banker & benefactor". I have the feeling he had Greek citizenship and was ambassador of Greece in Austria.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexikoua, the reason that it is Austrian is because he was born in Austria, that's what the current source says. Please feel free to modify it and add a source that describes his citizenship. Meanwhile I'll conduct a research to find more sources in order to enrich the article. I will let you know as soon I have a considerable amount. Nikolaus Dumba is important article to enrich as well. Thanks Othon I (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Women in Food and Drink editathon

November 2016
	An opportunity for you and your country to contribute to the Women in Food and Drink online editathon Faciliated by Women in Red

--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbanitai

Hi. I noticed your discussion with Future Perfect at Sunrise about Arbanitai (link) and it reminded me at another discussion on related topics (link). At that discussion, I presented a prime grade secondary source which clearly emphasized that "Albania" in the Middle Ages is a geographic concept to which no associations should come up with a political entity or a particular culture. That is why it is recommended to make clear distinction between medieval toponym and demonym on one side and modern entity and ethnicity/culture on another.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your comment I will bear it mind. This is what I was trying to explain to Future Perferct on Sunrise but he doesn't seem to share a same view. In the source that I provided to him from an expert on the field it is shown that the people have been called at that time Arbanitai and not Albanians but he refuses it. I understand that the came from the geographical location that modern Albania is but the name Albania wasn't on use in that region at that time. Instead Theme of Dyrrachium and Arvanon was. I can happily endorse to this proposition and support it. Othon I (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that in cases like this sources mean nothing. Some editor can always say "You are confusing words with the concepts they stand for." That sentence is actually the perfect way to start year 2017 taking in consideration that posttruth is word of 2016 year per Oxford dictionaries.

Many Balkan nationalistic mythologies have its roots in misidentification of medieval toponym and demonym on one side and modern entity and ethnicity/culture on another. The first article I wrote on wikipedia is Nationalization of history. Knowing the ropes here for seven years, I can conclude that almost every Balkan nationalistic mythology have a small group of editors here who actively support it. Since this topic area does not attract too much outside attention, they usually easily get away with their actions. I think that promotion of pro-Foo nationalistic mythology should not be confused with pro-Fooianism, because it is actually one of the most anti-Foo activities somebody could undertake. To conclude - in case of Albania there is zero chance to make clear distinction between medieval toponym and demonym on one side and modern entity and ethnicity/culture on another.

Thank you for your support and I wish you all the best in postfactual world of year 2017.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Othon I. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Othon I. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Recent RfC Closure

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benizelos family

Hello, Othon I,

I'm not sure why but you are moving this article around to 5 or 6 different locations. This is disruptive editing. If you are working on this article, work on it in Draft space or your Sandbox. If you believe it is in good enough shape to be reviewed by the New Page Patrollers, please leave it in main space. But these constant moves have to end. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning @Liz:, Thank you for your comment and my apologies. I have finished working on the article and I wanted to submit it however, I accidentally moved it from my sandbox and I tried to move it back. I understand that it is disruptive, but was not intentional. I was planning to use the article wizard because it is the first article that I have created and I would like to be reviewed indeed. So should I leave it as is now or use the wizard? Othon I (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi Othon I! Thank you for your edits to Peloponnese. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Despotate of the Morea into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]