User talk:Rolandi+

Welcome!

Hello, Rolandi+, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Thank you !I hope I will have a nice time while contributing to Wikipedia! Rolandi+ (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing wikia

Please note that Wikia is not a reliable source. It is not suitable for citation in Wikipedia articles, although you may be able to find reliable sources through Wikia if the editors there have included citations to such sources. ~ Rob^Talk 11:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! Rolandi+ (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! You've gotten some flack lately from editors who have noticed some disruptive behaviors, but it seems you've been acting in good faith. I'd recommend slowing down a bit. Wikipedia is theoretically going to remain around forever, so waiting a day or two and getting comments on an article's talk page prior to editing doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things, and can help avoid most common mistakes. If you have any questions regarding editing, I'd recommend referring to the links at the top of your talk page that another user left for you, going to the Teahouse (a friendly place for new editors to ask questions), or responding here and I'll see if I'm able to help. While you should certainly take the things that other editors have told you on your talk page to heart, don't let it worry you too much. I was new not too long ago as well, and everyone can learn how to edit constructively with a little effort. ~ Rob^Talk 11:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again!At the moment I don't have any question ,but maybe I will need some help in the future.....so thank you again! Rolandi+ (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Heikegani, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was actually editing so I thought to add the references after I finished my edits.My reference here is ^[1]. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ J.W. Martin (1993) : “The Samurai Crab “ .pg 30-34.

Source misinterpretation

Hi,

With this edit (diff) you inserted the quote:

"Today scholars see Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians."

The source says:

"Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians." - Fine, John Van Antwerp (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. p. 10. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.

Furthermore the author explains that this traditional view is today challenged and explains that there are valid linguistic arguments "serious, nonchauvinistic" that Albanians came to Balkans from what is now Romania because it was also affected by large-scale invasion of Goths and Slavs in 4th-6th century.

It is obvious that author does not say that he or scholars today support Albanian-Illyrian hipotesis. On the contrary, he explains that it has been misused in Albanian nationalistic myth building with expansionistic purposes.

Please urgently revert your edit based on blatant misinterpretation of the source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator,I didn't add that source refering to Illyrians (This isn't an Illyrian related article).I added it only refering to Dacian-Vlach relationship.(so the part containing "Illyrians" can be deleted).It says traditionally scholars have seen Dacians as the ancestors of modern Romanians and Vlachs (and Illyrians as the proto-Albanians).Then the source says that perhaps this is not correct.

These all means that the main theory (as it says traditionally) is that dacians are the ancestors of vlachs.Then it says PERHAPS it's not correct(it doesn't say it is not correct,but perhaps).This means that there are other theories (which also are included in the article).So I don't see any problem about my edits.However talk to me about any problem relating to this case.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification of sources

I see that you have been told this [1]], but I will try to explain again: Your edit states that "Today scholars see Dacians as ancestors..." when the source says "Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors...", continuing to show that this view has been seriously challenged. Your statement is actually contradicted by the source. If you do not change this yourself, your edit will be seen as a sign that you are pushing your own point of view, and you will inevitably be blocked. --T*U (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go,read what that part of article says and then come and talk to me.It says that "According to one of the origin theories Vlachs originated from latinized Dacians".This means that it is a theory and it's normal to be challenged.It is not a POV .However I will change the reference citation as it has been an error.Also there has been a discussion at the article's talk page.So instead of warning me about your imaginary possible blocks ,go and participate at the discussion. Rolandi+ (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Alexikoua (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course.And you will be reported if continue deleting my edits only because you don't like them.If you have anything to say about my edits,talk to me,don't vandalise Wikipedia. Rolandi+ (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing sources again. Ktistakis clearly states that the Italian census figures are exaggerated. You are misusing him to inflate the number of Cham Albanians using Wikipedia's own voice. You have already been warned about this once. Not only that, but you are edit-warring over it. You are on very thin ice here, I suggest you stop. Athenean (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean,my edits doesn't say that the figures are exaggerated or not.They are figures so they should be involved in.Also Ktistakis is a greek so it's normal for him to call those figures as exaggerated.Also the most unreliable figures are those of Greek government that might have tried to reduce the real number of Ch. Albanians.How can you believe the Greek government figures when it made genocide,killed and stole albanians?However the two figures should be included to make the article neutral. Rolandi+ (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vasile Lupu. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~ Rob^Talk 13:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely thank you for your advices.Actually I wasn't edit warring as I deleted twice the edits of a vandal who calimed that Vasile Lupu is his ancestor.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Cham Albanians, you may be blocked from editing. Article talk pages are records of discussion on an issue. There are limited situations when material may be removed, and I don't see any evidence that your removal qualifies. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mahmud Pasha

"it's not the first time you delete other editor's references.maybe you need to be reported. use the talk page when want to delete my references or you will be reported". Please do report me if you think that I'm deliberately "deleting references". You should first understand WP:MOS, and other wikipedia policies, before misjudging my edits. There is no need for a bare-refs in the introduction when the subject is undisputed. If it was disputed, and the article was prone to vandalism, a reference in the lead would be justified.--Zoupan 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan,it's not only about that case.You have a habit to delete other editors' references.When you think any of my references needs to me moved or removed talk to me ,then after discussion delete it if needed.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have that habit. I have tried discussing matters with you, but your uncivility is in the way of a progressive editing relation. You still haven't understood the way of constructive editing.--Zoupan 22:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive editing?Who is talking about constructive editing,you Zoupan?You delete others' edits,references without explanation !Why don't you see the sources you tried to use at Kosovo serbs?You say that you have tried discussing matters with me,but the only thing you do is to delete (or at least to move at another place at the article) my edits and references.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Vlachs. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are vandalising Wikipedia and maybe I need to report you the next time.Go and see what the reference say and then make your disruptive edits. Rolandi+ (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Rob^Talk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

This sentence was plagiarized from Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia edited by Christopher Kleinhenz, page 1112[2] and Key Figures in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia edited by Richard K. Emmerson, page 641.[3]. Plagiarism is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Consider this your only warning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I will regulate as soon as possible.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shout

Hi, please do not WP:SHOUT it just hurts the eye and does not help you in any way. Please use a good tone in discussions or tyou risk editors turning against you. We are all here to work together, not scream at eachother. Qed237 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't know that.Thank you!Rolandi+ (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. There is always things to learn, and now you know so it wont happen again. Have a nice day! Qed237 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Advise

I see you have been involved in a recent heated discussion on Albanian related topics. My friendly advice is for you to not be very aggressive in pursue of your truths. Pro-Greek and pro-Slavic editors outnumber the pro-Albanians and they will suffocate you with their opposition. Do not do debate aggressively with them, or they will have you banned! Instead I would focus on providing only reliable sources on a specific topic and focus only on the sources, not on the other editors. Please keep in mind that experienced editors will not come to your help if you engage in personal debates. If these guys ommit your reliable sources, then create a WP:RFC. Most importantly, stay away for a few days, because the way I see it, if you do not step back a bit then you might get banned. It is a pity though, most admins will not even spend a minute checking whether you are right or wrong on any concrete topic. They will simply criticize your combatant style and ask you to be banned. Of course, all the mentioned points are my friendly advises. You can choose to keep or throw them :) OppositeGradient (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely,thank you for your advice.As I said at ANI I will be more carefull in the future.Thank you OppositeGradient !Rolandi+ (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endrit Vrapi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it.Thank you!Rolandi+ (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You insists that the 1400+ Tocco ruled Despotate of Epirus included also southern Albania. Needles to say that without the necessary reference this can be easily labelled as disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Hi! Allow me to make a few suggestions about editing Wikipedia.

1 I see that you have been experimenting at Gjon Buzuku without managing to get the result you seem to want. There are several ways to do such experimenting without making a mess of the article in the process. The first idea is to use the Preview option. Under the editing window and beside the Save page "button", there is another "button" marked Show preview. If you click on it, you will see how the result will be without actually saving. Then you can continue editing until you see the result you want, and then click Save page. If you want to make larger experiments, you can use the sandbox, see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. An even better solution is to use your own personal sandbox.

2 I do not know if you have read my comments at Talk:History of the Jews in Albania#Sabbatai Zevi, so I will repeat it here: The content you added is fine, but you should be careful not to quote the source too closely, since it could cause concern about copyright violation. Also, your reference should give bibliographical information about the source you use (author, title etc.), not just a Google book search. I will remove the edit, suggesting you re-enter the content in your own words and with proper reference, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

3 Finally, I hope that you will take some time to learn punctuation rules, such as using space after, but not before comma and full stop. I have corrected your last entry at Himarë. It is, however, quite boring to tidy after other editors, so you will attract less irritation if you avoid making this kind of errors.

--T*U (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advices!Sincerely,I am reading the Wikipedia's rules carefully so I hope I will not cause such mess in the future.

More advice

Before you warn off other editors like this you might need to read some guidelines yourself, such as WP:AGF (Assume good faith) WP:BITE (Do not bite the newcomers) and WP:NOTVAND (What is not vandalism). You might redact your accusations and even apologize. --T*U (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to scare him.You can also give him some links for Wikipedia's rules if possible.Also,he isn't so new here,he used to edit as an unregistered user before creating his account.He isn't so new as he is asking others to help him fighting "pseudo-history" in Swedish Wikipedia.I don't want to give him a bad idea about Wikipedia however I can't accept some of his edits.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks article

There is currently an edit war at Greeks article concerning the figure of Greeks in Greece and Albania, for what I see from the talk page I thought you'd be the man for it. One editor broke the 3rr and another one made 3 reverts, I ran out of my reverts too. I won't call it even a dispute, it is about a ridicilous source falsificating the number of Greeks in Greece containing OR and weasel words that they keep reverting without any explanation. If you conclude that my edits are correct I'd be glad if you help with one revert or two. Best--45.33.137.195 (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the number of Greeks in Albania is fully exaggerated but I can't help you at this moment.The source is based on nothing when concludes there are 200000 greeks in Albania.Why don't you try using the article's talk page?It is the best way to find a consensus.I 'm sure you'll find the right way using the talk page.Also why don't you create an account,it would help you when editing here.Regards and hope you enjoy your time here.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of assertion cited by apparently good source

Hello,

I noticed you removed assertion based on apparently good source with this edit (diff). Please don't do that again.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: I deleted that source for the explained reasons.The source refers to Pal Kastrioti as of Serb origin as he was born in Serbia (now northern Albania). Castriota family originated from the village of Kastrat in northeastern Albania.So stop readding misinterpreted infos.Rolandi+ (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited text you removed is supported with very reliable source. It is wrong and disruptive to remove it contrary to the opinion of multiple editors. Don't repeat it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: The very reliable source says he was of Serb origin.He was born in Serbia (now Northern Albania) and the word "serb" is not used in the ethnic sense.And if it is used,please prove it.Rolandi+ (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He was born in Serbia (now Northern Albania)" is what you say. No source mention it. You said ".The source refers to Pal Kastrioti as of Serb origin as he was born in Serbia (now northern Albania)." You removed assertion which is not related to Pal, but to "kephale Kastrioti, Skanderbeg's great-grandfather and the earliest known ancestor of Skanderbeg". Please be more careful in future. I clearly explained you that you should not remove assertion cited with very reliable source, contrary to the opinion of multiple editors. I don't have much to add to it now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: You are very interesting!Katrioti family originated from Kastriot (Kabashi) or Kosovo (Malcolm) so the family's origin was from Serbia,but not in ethnic sense.So stop adding the serb origin of Skenderbeg's ancestor.Rolandi+ (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pal Kastrioti

With this edit and this edit you try to remove well sourced info and a perfectly good source. The edit summaries about the names must be a joke, since I am sure you must be aware that Ivan is a Slavic version of John or Gjon?

The text you "add" in these edits is completely redundant, as it is identical to the start of the very same paragraph.

In this edit you make it look as if Babinger just states that there "seems to" be a consensus. But Babinger states that there "is" consensus.

Finally, in this addition, there needs to be a proper citation with page number and preferably a quote. In addition, the name Branilo is added into the text, making the reader asking "Who the ... is Branilo". The name is otherwise only in the notes, so the new sentence does not give a reader anything ut confusion unless s/he reads all the notes.

I would advice you to fix this yourself before your edits are reverted. --T*U (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. You have a long history of problematic editing and refusal to get the point. Discuss the matter (your viewpoints) on the talk page.--Zoupan 20:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoupan: just see your history,you are worse than me!Rolandi+ (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Ivan is a Slavic version of John or Gjon while Voislava and Voisava isn't the same thing.It is clearly a pro-slavic falsification of the name to make her look like of slavic origin.But this isn't a problem for you.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Voisava" is derived from Vojislava, according to the Voisava Tripalda article. That a source in Slavic language uses Slavic name versions does not give you any right to delete the source and the information the source supports. --T*U (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Babinger doesn't say there "is" a consensus.Babinger says that it "seems to" be a consensus.Voislava and Voisava isn't the same thing.The first is used only by Slavs.The serb source falsificates Voisava's name to make her look like a serb.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could, of course, be part of a giant anti-Albanian conspiracy. On the other hand, it might be a Serb writer using the Serb version of the name, just like he uses Ivan, since the name "Voisava" is derived from the Slavic Vojislava. And as said before: If you have questions about whether a source is reliable, you can raise it at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not delete it. As for Babinger, it seems that you are right, he does say "scheinen". My apologies!

Regarding the stuff you have added, you have to give better sourcing with quotes, so that other editors can evaluate the additions. If the sourcing is valid, it will have to be rewritten somewhat, since tha article now seems to contradict itself. But first: Proper sourcing, please. --T*U (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,I'll add quotes.The article now seems to contradict itself :this is why I had added "according to Babinger" and "according to Noli".Rolandi+ (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of assertion cited by apparently good source

Hello,

I noticed that you again removed cited assertion with this edits diff. Please don't do that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: Do you know how to read?If yes,undo your edit by yourself please.If you readd that again I'll report you!Madgearu refers to Bua family of Epirus (Gjin Bua) which isn't related to Bua of Morea.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote clearly say "... but it is sure that at least the Buia family was of Aromanian origin...". It does not say "Bua family of Epirus (Gjin Bua) which isn't related to Bua of Morea". Just because some of its members were appointed as governors in Epirus does not mean that the family changed. Please respect wikipedia policies and reach consensus on talkpages if you want to remove cited assertions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: The source talks about Gjin Buia (also known as Gjin Buia Spata).It says:"Albanian historians consider Gjin (or Ghinu) Buia and Peter Liosha Albanian, but it is sure that at least the Buia family was of Aromanian origin"(pg.83).The article says:"Not to be confused with Spata family".It also says:"It was not kin (blood relatives) with the earlier Spata family".There is a consensus about the fact that Madgearu talks about Gjin Bua of Epirus (known as Gjin Bua Spata).So please undo your edit as soon as possilbe!Rolandi+ (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote clearly say "... but it is sure that at least the Buia family was of Aromanian origin..." I don't have much to add to it now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: It is well explained at the article's talk page but you don't want to go there and to see the truth.This Bua family isn't related to Bua of Epirus.You want to misinterpret the source and this is a ridiculous act.Why don't you go to the talk page before making the historian here?As I said Bua of Epirus isn't related to this family and there is a consensus.This is the last time I say to you.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fine source, again

I can think of two explanations: Either you have short memory or you are trying a bluff in the hope that others have short memory. (If there is another explanation, please let me know.) I will refresh your memory:

In this edit you were explained that Fine does not say "Today scholars see...". He says "Traditionally scholars have seen..." and continues to argue against it. In this edit I tried to explain it in more detail. You answered "However I will change the reference citation as it has been an error.", and here you finally correct the false quote without an edit summary. You even call it vandalism when an editor mistakenly reverts your (unexplained) correction, believing it to be further POV-pushing.

Now we are back to scratch, so I will just repeat the reason for my "shameful act": Fine does not say "Today scholars see...". He says "Traditionally scholars have seen..." and continues to argue against it.

Also: It is good advice always to use edit summaries when you edit an article. That way you avoid misunderstandings about your reason for the edit, and you do not irritate other editors that would like to know what you have done without having to check in detail. If you had marked your correction to the quote in "Vlachs" with "correcting own mistake" or something like that, you probably would have avoided being reverted. --T*U (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: There is no reason to delete the Illyrian ancestry of Albanians and you know that.There were two other sources supporting my edits,also it is well-known that many scholars say that Illyrians are the ancestors of Albanians.So Fine wasn't a good reason to delete a well-known information.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A falsified quote is a good enough reason for reverting. --T*U (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor:I don't think so (if it really is a falsified quote).I am adding the Illyrian origin of Albanians without Fine as a source.I hope there is no other problem about that.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean: "if it really is a falsified quote"???

And I see several problems with entering the Illyrian/Albanian claim, the main problem being that you were blocked for edit war against several editors in July, pushing for the very same addition. Other problems are whether the sources are reliable and verifiable and whether the theory is fringe. You will have to create a consensus in the talk page before you try to enter it again, se WP:BRD. --T*U (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously starting this over again, Rolandi+? I truly think your WP:COMPETENCE needs to be called into question again if A) you still haven't understood what Fine is arguing (i.e., he actually takes Georgiev's linguistic argument for the Dacian-Albanian connection as the most serious scholarly position as opposed to nationalist and other politically motivated narratives); B) you don't use edit summaries when editing contentious articles; C) you don't engage with other editors per BRD.
Editing Wikipedia is exhausting enough without editors who don't get it. Such editing practices are disruptive, and no one wants to have to go over the same subject-matter over and over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Even an anti-Albanian can't believe that Illyrian ancestry of Albanians is a fringe theory.Some scholars support an Thracian-Illyrian mix origin of Albanians,this is why I am saying "many scholars say".However the Illyrian ancestry is the main one.Rolandi+ (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disestablished in 1417 and still alive in 1444

Hello Rolandi+. I noticed you added an exceptional claim cited with work of Albanian historiography. Will you please be so kind to follow Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL and provide multiple high quality sources for such exceptional claim that medieval lordship disestablished in 1417 still existed in 1444 and joined League of Lezhe military alliance? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly remind you to back your exceptional claim (diff) with exceptional sources at Lordship of Berat.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: Unfortunetely I am busy now and I don't have enough time to make some needed edits there (some more references supporting Anamali's claim+some more infos about Lordship of Berat).However I'll edit them in the future.As for now you can delete Anamali's claim if that deletion is so needed.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. I don't think it would be possible to find multiple high quality sources for such exceptional claim. I will try to clarify this Valona, Kanine and Berat issue in more detail. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Could you please be more careful when you add content to articles. In your addition to Ioannis Kolettis you managed to make four errors in the Clogg quote of five words. It is annoying to have to clean up. This is, after all, suppposed to be an encyclopedia. In particular, learn how to use space in connection with comma and full stop.

Also, as you have now been told by several editors, please use edit summaries to explain your edits. --T*U (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Also, please learn how to use indentation on talk pages. --T*U (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space

I have asked you several times before to try to learn punctuation rules. I see that you still omit spaces in connection with comma or full stop in almost every edit where it is relevant. Is it that you do not understand the rules, or do you do it on purpose? This is an encyclopedia, and if it is to be taken seriously, it has to look like an encyclopedia, not like a student's essay. --T*U (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance

Hello dear Rolandi+! I wanted to say my appreciation for your help in battling vandalism in various wiki articles, including, among others, the Macedonians (ethnic group) article. Thank you and I wish you have a good day. :) --SilentResident (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: Thank you!I hope that user will not continue with his own agenda.Have a nice day too!Rolandi+ (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans

I also wanted to let you know that I added the article Konstantinos Zappas to your DRN request since it relates directly to Evangelos Zappas.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: Thank you!Rolandi+ (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Your edit summary at "Nuclear power in Albania", "it's not redirect,be more careful in the future", indicates that you do not understand what a redirect is. I will explain. The target page is named "Lake Skadar". When you wikilink it to "Lake Shkodra", as you have done, the link is first sent to "Lake Shkodra", which is a redirect page, and then it is sent on to "Lake Skadar". In the upper left corner under the title "Lake Skadar" it says "(Redirected from Lake Shkodra)". It was to avoid this that I changed your edit. If you want the text in the link to say "Lake Shkodra", but go directly to "Lake Skader", you write [[Lake Skadar|Lake Shkodra]]. In that case it is informative and useful to have the target article name in the parenthesis, and by giving the Albanian name in the link there is no need to have another version of the Albanian name in the parenthesis. I therefore suggest you change the wikitext to "on the shores of [[Lake Skadar|Lake Shkodra]] (Lake Skadar),". Then you get your preferred name in the link without needing a redirect, and the reader gets more information. --T*U (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since your edit now has stood one week, I have reverted it. It is not acceptable to have two Albanian name versions in the link and neither Lake Skadar (the article title and common name in English) nor Lake Scutari (the former article title). If you want to change the order of the names, please follow my suggestion above. --T*U (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erratic edit

To avoid troubling other editors with having to correct your errors, I suggest you correct two errors in your edit to "Domnus of Stridon" yourself: Add a space before the new sentence beginning with "Domnus", and remove one "i" from Stridion to "Stridon". I have repeatedly told you to learn the punctuation rules. It is extremely annoying to correct such unneccesary mistakes. --T*U (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

‎Please be careful with your edit summaries. The comment "alredy sourced" could be taken as meaning that it already was sourced before my edit, which it was not. Something like "now sourced" would have been better. I will also repeat what I and others have told you several times: Please use edit summaries every time you edit an article. The main point of edit summaries is not to argue or discuss, but to tell other editors what you have done, so that they do not have to look at every edit. --T*U (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake.However I don't believe it will cause any problem.Thank you for your help.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E. Wilkinson

Your source, "The History of South Slavs", seems to be difficult to find, via google, books.google.com, or amazon. Can you provide a link to this book? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for List of Albanian Grand Viziers

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of Albanian Grand Viziers —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. T*U (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Kosovar

An article that you have been involved in editing—Kosovar —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. T*U (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]], where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rolandi+, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] J.W. Martin (1993) : “The Samurai Crab “ .pg 30-34.

[1]