This is an archive of past discussions about User:SilentResident. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Marianna Vardinoyannis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I have lifted the speed deletion nomination; that doesn't mean it isn't copyright vio, but a quick look suggests that you may have edited it enough that it's not an unambiguous violation, which is required for a speedy. I don't have time to work further on it now. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Converting the name "Thessaloniki" to the English "Thessalonica" for English Wiki
Please wait with that "Thessaloniki">"Thessalonica" renaming. You are introducing a whole lot of inconsistency between article texts and article titles. This is a pretty radical change and I can't say I find it obviously correct. This should not be done without first having a clear formal consensus about renaming the actual article. Please do a WP:RM before unilaterally changing all those articles. Fut.Perf.☼09:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok. I just tried just updating the name to the English since thats the English wiki, (not that the other one isn't correct too), so Thessalonica to be much like all other old cities of Greece which ALL have English names. Dunno that it needed a consensus for that :o But ok. Can you ask for the consensus as I am not sure how to do it myself... :S And since it took me a whole hour to do the updates to the english name, I better leave this tedious task to someone else if consensus is reached. --SilentResident (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorting of member countries by territory or percentage order
Please read [1]. It shows the basis of the current ordering of countries and the consensus that was reached. The consensus is percentage of country within named region. Since nearly 100% of Macedonia is within the region of "Macedonia" it comes first. Then comes Greece since about 20% of Greece is within "Macedonia". Then comes Bulgaria, Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania (I think in alphabetical order unless someone has done the math to determine precisely what percentage of their territory is within "Macedonia"). --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Taivo for informing me about this. My bad, I thought it to be sorted by alphabetical order but noticed that it was sorted by territorial or population order except the first 2 countries on the list. Usually thats how countries are sorted in many other Wikipedia pages about regions. OK good to know. :) --SilentResident (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Naming Policy for the region of Macedonia
Dear user Vergiotisa, I shall inform you that in the English version of Wikipedia, your changes have been reverted as the name used for the republic is "Republic of Macedonia", and not "Macedonia" or "FYROM", as per Wikipedia rule. For the Macedonians, there is a distinction: Macedonian (Ethnic) and Macedonian (Greek), in case this helps. --SilentResident (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Silent Resident, I shall inform you that in the English version of Wikipedia, facts and legal correctness are more important than self proclamations. You have reverted to a name that FYROM proclaims itself but it is a name that is not accepted by the international community (UN) because it violates a historical name of Greece. "Macedonia" was an ancient Greek Kingdom in the ancient equivalent of the modern region of northern Greece. Copyright, State emblem laws the declaration of Human Rights on self identification and the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity all apply to PROTECT the name "Macedonia" from unrelated self proclaiming slavs to the north who are identified on an international level as the “FYROM”. As per Wikipedia rule, wikipedia is not the personal playground of propagandists. For the historical Macedonians, there is a distinction: Macedonian (Ethnic) is equivalent to Macedonian (Greek), because historically there has never been anything but a Greek identifying kingdom named Macedonia. In case this helps; anything else is factually incorrect and anyone insisting on this position is therefore pushing propaganda and for the record I will be taking this further until the appropriate corrections are made. --vergiotisa (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergiotisa (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Vergiotisa, please check: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). As you see, your edits where you rename the "Republic of Macedonia" into "FYROM" goes against Wikipedia's consensus which declares that all English articles could refer to this country by its constitutional name, which is Republic of Macedonia, not "FYROM", even if the name is politically disputed. I agree that the Wikipedia is not a place of propaganda, but I am afraid that it is also not a place of politics as well. Please you have to comply with Wikipedia rules and refrain from renaming the Republic of Macedonia into FYROM. Thanks! --SilentResident (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear SilentResident I thank you for directing me to the: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) which are obviously the product of propaganda and the work of propagandists and which does not conform to United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 for the naming of the FYROM causing gross copyright violations of national symbols and state emblems as per Article 6ter: Marks: Prohibitions concerning State Emblems, Official Hallmarks and Emblems of Intergovernmental Organizations Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Propertyas well as violating article 29 # (2) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which limit self determination to respect the rights and freedoms of existing historical ethnic and cultural identities and article 2 and 4 of the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity that forbids infringing on an existing historical cultural identity. I will redirect my attention to making the appropriate changes so that the violations are rectified at the core level and from henceforth all articles for the FYROM conform to the new and appropriate guidelines. Your help has been invaluable (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think the Wikipedia is a ground where propaganda prevails, you are completely wrong. The Wikipedia clearly stated that the modern day Slav Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians are not related to each other, aside from the name. Alexander the Great, Philip, and the kingdom of Macedon were all Greek. The modern day Ethnic Macedonians are Slavic people, unrelated to the ancient ones. The Wikipedia already clarifies all that, and distinguishes the Republic of Macedonia from the rest of the region of Macedonia without the need to use the term FYRoM which is an alienated term that cannot be understood by most foreigners who are neither Greeks nor Ethnic Macedonians. Really, accusing the Wikipedia for being a ground of propaganda just because you don't agree with their neutral policies, doesn't mean that that will get your points right. Nor enforcing the use of the political terms such as FYRoM over the RoM helps. --SilentResident (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not accusing wikipedia I am stating facts, the legalities behind the use of the name "Macedonia" as well as the abuse by INDIVIDUALS with an agenda. You yourself have just admitted that this is an issue between Slavs and Greeks, two ethnic identities completely independent of each other which is what all the aforementioned laws, statutes and charters address. What are you arguing for then? The articles you are so vehemently protecting identify "Macedonians" and then they identify Greeks of Macedonia and you consider this "neutral"? By identifying the FYROM solely by the name Macedonia without the determination of "Yugoslavia" as the UN charter has addressed you are misleading the reader at the expense and disadvantage of the historically Greek Macedonians and it is this discrepancy that the international laws and thus the name "FYROM" are in place to clarify. Violation of international law that muddies the water for a political agenda will not be tolerated or excused by the term "neutrality". Your personal opinion (and your rhetoric which is nothing but opinion) means nothing. The use of the name disadvantages the real Macedonians and the movements of this gang of propagandist "thugs" who attack any attempt to apply the legal and correct version within wikipedia have thus far gone by fairly unchallenged by someone who is familiar with the legalities. This will now stop. Thugery and stand over tactics will not be tolerated in wikipedia and Sir when someone continues to take the side against the legal position then it is without a doubt an agenda. Good day to you Sir. Vergiotisa—Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia can neither conform nor fail to conform to the United Nations resolution, as the UN resolution discusses only what the UN will use to refer to the nation; it makes no claim about what other folks who are not the UN should use to refer to it. As Wikipedia is not a UN project, that is a moot point. The claim that Wikipedia is violating international law by doing so has no grounding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you implying that Wikipedias judgement and opinion is above and beyond UN Resolutions and UN laws which govern the naming of Nations and The behavior of Nations with their Neighbors especially when both countries in question have signed to abide by those UN Resolutions and UN laws? Are you implying that Wikipedia is above the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity, WIPO and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which protects national symbols and state emblems. Are you an official spokesman for Wikipedia stating that you do not have to abide by any kind of convention of truth? Vergiotisa—Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am stating that I have actual read the resolution in question, and found that it makes no statement about how other nations should refer to that nation, much less how private individuals and groups should do so; that even at that, it is not a UN law but merely a recommendation to the general body from the Security Council. I encourage you to read its text (it's quite short) so that you can see that for yourself, rather than continuing to misrepresent it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Security Council Resolutions are binding regardless of your lack of relative understanding. The UN Security Council engaged itself because it identified the misuse of the historical Greek name of Macedonia and deemed it a provocation and therefore a security issue. Its recommendation was that if the Slavs of a Republic of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia wished to include itself with the community of members of the United Nations, then it would do so ONLY in a fashion that did not violate the Declaration of Human Rights and the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity which the UN Security Council has adopted and which runs parallel to the UN Charter. The FYROM agreed to these terms making the resolution binding and thus it became a member state of the UN. The burden of proof therefore is on anyone wishing to use any name other than the FYROM on an international encyclopaedic platform and must justify their position by include citations where the FYROM has participated in any formal international conventions, conferences, summits etc under any name other than the one allocated by UN Security Resolution 817 before they insist on another name that can and does cause discord between the two different cultural identities. You have in your previous message agreed that this issue is one between two different ethnic identities, Slavs and Greeks of which the latter hold the historical identity of Macedonia therefore and in fact identifying and accepting the exact problem the UN Security Resolution towards the FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC sought to dispose of by adopting its binding Resolution 817at its 3196th meeting, on 7 April 1993. Any continued objections to the name FYROM in Wikipedia, without valid proof to justify the use, that places Wikipedia in a position that adopts a biased policy against the very international resolutions, declarations, charters, copyrights and conventions that seek to protect from security issues arising from the misrepresentation of the “Macedonian” character in favour of the unrelated Slavs, indicates that the best interests of Wikipedia are not in mind but instead the objectives are of a more personal, dubious and questionable nature. --Vergiotisa (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, your claim about the "burden of proof" resides outside of the way Wikipedia names things.The United States of America gets referred to here by things other than its treaty name all of the time. Many people are similarly identified by things other than their legal names. If you wish to change Wikipedia policy, you'll find it best to address the Talk pages of those policy pages, not some user's talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia as you have stated previously resides within neutrality and the name currently pushed by some editors for the FYROM is one sided bias. The USA does not violate someone else's historical thousands of years old cultural name so that a UN Security Council Resolution was passed in order to regulate how it's name was used for it not to cause misrepresentations and security issues. You are not 'some' user. YOU reverted my legitimate edits citing a reason that is not acceptable on my personal talk page and you were answered. Thank you, yes, I fully intend to address and alter every fallacy and misrepresentation until all are correct. --Vergiotisa (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not SilentResident. You may have lost track, there are two other editors beside you in this conversation here. And having now looked at his edit on your talk page, all he was doing was summarizing some material from the Wikipedia naming convention regarding the Republic of Macedonia. He seems to have been playing within Wikipedia guidelines; if you have a problem with those guidelines, the best idea is for you to address it on the Talk pages for those guidelines and try to find consensus for change. Coming to his talk page and accusing him of thuggery, and misrepresenting both law and Wikipedia policy, is not going to serve your cause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not accuse anyone Sir I responded with the facts and clarified my position and the reason for my edits which SilentResident reverted and addressed on my page. Yes it seems I have lost track since I am not accustomed to having unknown third parties enter into a conversation between two individuals. There is no cause. There is only the intention to see neutrality and international conventions, resolutions, charters and copyrights adhered to. In any case I will be addressing the necessary talk pages hence forth. I thank you and the various others who deemed it necessary to enter into this conversation for your time and for your guidance. --Vergiotisa (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Accession of Albania to the European Union - Disambiguation link notification
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Accession of Albania to the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
between the two countries, which Albania's previous government signed with Greece in 2009.<ref>[http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_07/08/2014_542016 Kathimerini Newspaper:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ancient Macedonians. 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.
I am afraid it was you who started the whole Edit/Revert War, Future Perfect. I am kinda surprised you are now calling me to respect a consensus, when I did nothing but to add new content to the page that complies with what was in place already and while there was nothing in the talk page regarding the artwork by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris. You shouldn't have been reverting my edits for four (4) reasons:
1) You reverted my Good Faith edits in that page using the excuse that the historical portrait by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (which I added to that page) was... "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value". This was extremely poor argument you have used here, given that historical artistic depictions historical people and nations, in absence of true photographic material, is permitted in Wikipedia and does not violates the rules, and you can see portraits in almost every page in Wikipedia. From the page of Napoleon Bonaparte to the page of the Native Americans in the United States (so, both people and nations have portraits). As I explained in that page, the portrait was borrowed from another Wikipedia page, the page of Alexander the Great, so I don't see how the portrait that was already in use in Wikipedia, was "utterly unauthentic image" of "dubious encyclopedic value" for use in another, related, Wikipedia page.
2) If you have a dispute about the historical authenticity specific portrait, you should have used the Talk Page of that portrait in Wikia Commons, or the page where the portrait was used already. If you have not disputed the portrait so far, I don't see how can you dispute its future use in other Wiki Pages.
3) I gave you 24 hours to make some further improvements to the page since you removed my edits because you judged the portrait for being "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value", but you didn't make any improvements. You only remove other people's edits without actually improving the page on your own. So, I gave it another try, but this time with your feedback in account, and I used a historical mosaic found in the archeological site of the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Macedon (which was already in the page, just lower, and which I moved to the leading picture), because that ancient mosaic sure cannot be characterized for being "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value". But still, even so, you reverted my edits again...(!).
You had no valid reason to revert the second edits, because an authentic mosaic of that era where the people lived, is of ultimate encyclopedic value, I am afraid.
4) You did rush to revert my changes on the page right in middle of my ongoing improvements to that page, and thus, you prevented me from finishing the first couple of edits to that page. You rushed to revert my half-done edits within less than 2-3 minutes, without giving me the change to finalize them and before I ever give the actual final explanation of all edits in the "Reason for my Edits" field. I highly recommend, Future Perfect, you don't rush to mess with the ongoing edits/improvements made by other Wiki people especially since they are not vandals, they are only improving the article. Rushing to revert edits could be understandable if the people where vandalizing the page. However, if the people are just trying to improve the page, I could expect that they are respected and are given some time - lets say, 5-10 minutes - so they can finish their changes. After that, you can judge if their work fits and meets the quality standards set by Wikipedia. What you have done is to see only half the edits I planned to make to the page because you rushed to revert them within 2 minutes... so it was obvious that the unfinished edits seemed poor to you. I admit, however, that on my side, I should have explained my reverts to your reverts aren't full reverts - are just edits that take your consensus in accountange (I listened to you and put the mosaic instead of portrait in leading paragraph) instead of fully restoring my previous edits (which you reverted without a valid explanation anyways). I was about to finalize the edits and give an explanation but you prevented me from doing so. You didn't gave me the time for that, by reverting any edits done by me, almost immediately, in about within less than 2-3 minutes. That wasn't enough time for me to make carefully these improvements to the page, which I did one-by-one for better control of what is edited. But yes, still I should have explained right away why I reverted your reverts right on the moment the revert-of-revert was applied to the page. --SilentResident (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Historiographical term vs real name
Fuck it, I'm sick and tired of you. When will you finally learn to bloody fucking first go to a talkpage and make an effort to understand people's objections before you start revert-warring? How often has this happened now? How often have I had to explain something twice or three times to you before you finally got it, while you kept reverting all the time? Fut.Perf.☼08:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear FutPerfect, please be polite with me. You have no right to talk to me like this. Wikipedia does not belongs to you. It is a site where all people can contribute for the best information of the people and for the best possible readability. If your goal is to prevent the others from doing their improvements in the pages, then I am afraid, you are not understanding the basic principle behind Wikipedia's existence and evolvement to what today is the world's leading source for knowledge. I have already explained that my edits in the page of the Byzantine Empire, are in full accordance with what was done in all other pages. I am just lining up the material, by prioritizing the naming info of a State. I fail to understand how this is insulting to you, and why you take it in a very personal way. Please, next time you decide to talk in my talk page, be sure to show some more respect and appreciation for the fact that I, like most people here, are doing their best for the other people to use Wikipedia as a gateway for more knowledge and information. --SilentResident (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I actually will talk to you like this, because you made me angry, and I want you to sense how angry I am with you, so that you will understand that you are making people angry with the way you behave and have a chance to rectify your behaviour in the future. The problem is not your own explaining or not explaining your edits, it is that you consistently fail to understand the explanations I give you for mine, and that you consistently fail to take the time to understand them before you revert. Do you know the simple English words before and after? Then learn this: when there are objections against your edits, then you first go to the talkpage and make sure you at least understand why people are objecting to them, and then you can restore your edit if necessary. Simple, isn't it?
Now, in this instance, you have tried out three different ways of integrating "Roman Empire" in that first sentence. First [2] you called it an "official" name. Problem is, it wasn't an official name; there was no such thing as "official names" of states back then, and certainly not an "offical name" of the Byzantine Empire in English, a language of whose existence the Byzantines had no idea. Then [3] you introduced it with "more specifically"; problem is that "Roman Empire" isn't actually "more specific" then "Byzantine Empire" (look up what "specific" means). Then [4] you modified it by calling it "Late Roman Empire"; problem with that is that it isn't actually called that; in historiography, the term "Late Roman" conventionally refers to somewhere between the 4th to 6th centuries or thereabouts. So each of your three attempts so far have been plain, factually wrong.
As for your perceived need to get the alternative names into the lead sentence somehow, the only argument for doing that you have proposed is that other articles are doing it too. That, in principle, is a very poor argument on Wikipedia – there are lots of crappy articles on this project and crappy habits that have been entrenched through unthinking convention, and the habit of overloading lead sentences with naming details in brackets, taking up loads of valuable space before even getting to the gist of the defining sentence, is undoubtedly one such very bad habit. It makes lead sentences difficult to read and keeps the reader's attention away from the really important things, i.e. the definition that comes after the "was". Just because many other articles are doing it wrong is not a good reason to do it here too; in fact, we should be proud of having kept this one article clean of the bad habit. Alternative names, unless they are very few and can be handled with extreme brevity, are best handled where they are properly contextualized and explained, and the place we were doing it here was just fine. Your three failed attempts at explaining and contextualizing them properly in the first sentence just go to demonstrate that it is not conveniently possible with the required brevity there. Fut.Perf.☼09:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me be clear: your argument of using only a historiographical term (aka Byzantine Empire) (its a scientific/historical term, not its actual name) in the expense of the real name (Roman Empire) the state used in all of its official diplomatic contacts with foreign states, and the very name the citizens used to call their state with, to be in the top of the article, is indeed a very poor argument. Really, I fail to understand how do you find it logical to have the native/real/conventional/official name for that state be moved to sentences or bottom of paragraphs, instead of the article's top? Can you present me any other Wiki pages where a state has only its post-realm historiographical term be of top priority, at the beginning, and its real name be of secondary priority, lost in paragraphs and such? You wont. Even, for example, the article of the Holy See has this: the official/conventional name Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) instead of the more "common" term Vatican City, despite everybody today calling it with the name Vatican. Because Holy See is the official name of that state (or conventional in case of Medieval era's states) in the top of its page. Please... Seriously now... A state's real name should be on the top of the article... --SilentResident (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Byzantine Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Cyprus-Egypt-Greece 2014 Tripartite Summit in Cairo.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The Image's distribution rights are per DefenceNet's free distripution, I have failed to find any specific permission notes regarding the use of the specific picture. In case a free license is not applicable here, I do not know what license could be the most appropriate for the image in question. --SilentResident (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link to the page "Kingdom"
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip II of Macedon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom. 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 is natural for the monarchical states to be pointing to the relevant disambiguation page Kingdom. Because All the DPL notes so far made no practical sense at all, I am disabling DPL notifications from this talk page. --SilentResident (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Improvements to the article of Crete
Hi SilentResident,
I saw your post on Dr.K.'s user page and I've made some changes to the article of Crete. Specifically: I've reworded the lead to distinguish between the island and the region; moved the region infobox down to the 'Administration' section; added an infobox for the island at the top; and moved some of the pictures around. Let me know what you think, and thanks for the vector maps. Alakzi (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Alakzi! I like how you have done it, thanks for your contributions, the leading infobox in the page is now much better fitting. Well done. As for the administration section, I still believe it deserves to have its own separate article, as it is a completely different thing and covers territories outside the island of Crete. What do you think? I could really like to hear your opinion on the matter.--SilentResident (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It does seem counter-intuitive that the region, which is larger in size, is contained in the article of a smaller piece of land. If a separate article would aid in the understanding of the topic, then it is probably worth having. Alakzi (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Byzantine Empire VS Eastern Roman Empire name
Hey, SilentResident, I know it's a little late to mention this, but I saw your edits on Byzantine Empire and I agree with them. I think you're right that it was the Roman Empire and that it's citizens refereed to it as such, and that should be made more clear in the lead. It's unfortunate that anyone who tries to change things always gets reverted. Anyway, thanks for everything you do on here SilentResident, keep up the good work. I Feel Tired (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem, glad to be of any help. But take my fixes with some grain of salt and do not expect my fixes to stay in place for a long time, as some users around there, especially of German nationality, are obsessed with separating the Byzantine Empire from its Roman identity, by depicting them as two completely different empires. The reasons for that are unclear, but may be related to the fact that the term "Byzantine" was invented by a German historian, but wasn't limited into just the term's usage for historiographical purposes only, but was extended it to cultural/administrative ones. But this might not be the case, as there have been a matter of philosophical debate which has its sources to the belief of some German Wiki users for the Holy Roman Empire as being the spiritual successor of the Roman Empire. It is actually sad. And this affects how the Wikipedia presents the facts and at which order. --SilentResident (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
SR, your remarks about "some users around there, especially of German nationality..." sounds like a personal attack on FP, which is not appropriate here. Please stick to the substance. --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal attack agains't who? And what is a FP? I personaly do not know any users of German nationality but you missed the point of my wordings. When I am saying "some users around there, especially of German nationality" I am talking about the bitter fact that users of German nationality in the school are taught a different approach on the medieval history of the Eastern Roman Empire, following the work of the German historian Hieronymus Wolf, titled "Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ" and which is widely adopted by the mainstream German academics and is now reflected on various Eastern Roman-related pages. If the users whom I have been in disagreement with, regarding the naming policies for the ERE, are of German nationality, then it is just a coincidence. (which ironically proves what I am saying). As you see, I am not targeting or attacking someone, just I am referring to the old dispute between German and Greek academics who argue over the double standards on the naming policies used for both ERE and WRE. In case you believe I offended you or someone else, then I apologize. I should have re-worded or at least clarified the meaning of the phrase in my previous post, to avoid any misunderstandings. --SilentResident (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
FP = Fut.Perf., a German editor with whom you have had disputes over terminology for the Byzantine Empire.
Wolf is an important classic in Byzantine historiography, along with Gibbon, du Cange, and later authors like Paparrigopoulos, and so on, but any modern historian (regardless of nationality) who took any of them at face value would be laughed out of the academy. Some schoolbooks (both German and Greek--see for example the analyses of Y. Hamilakis) no doubt reflect obsolete theories, but claiming that "mainstream German academics" are in the thrall of a 16th century author is peculiar. --Macrakis (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How can you know that Future Perfect at Sunrise is German? Did he specifically stated his nationality to you? Even if your claims about his nationality are true, then again this doesn't change anything. The fact remains - there is a debate, both inside Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia, regarding the naming policy of certain factions, such as the ERE. I am historian myself with decree, specialized on social affairs and diplomatic affairs of historical factions, and I know that not every colleague agrees on the onomatology of the ERE (a proof for you is me) - some historians may call it Byzantine, while other historians may call it ERE. You can not deny that there can be different approaches by people of different opinions on this matter. Yes, I have had a debate with Future Perfect at Sunrise over the naming policy of the ERE, while I agree with him on other maters, and I can say this is very natural. We have democracy after all. And just in case, let me highlight that one of the basic rules of Wikipedia is to call the states, both current and past ones, by their actual names, alongside historiographical ones, and not the historiographical one at the expense of the real one. It is all about calling things by their actual names. For example, could you call the Western Roman Empire simply as "Ravennian Empire" just because its capital was moved from Rome to Ravenna and could be more of a historiographical term than a real name? That is, more or less, the problem with the ERE. There is a debate on how can the Eastern Roman Empire be called, Byzantine or Roman, and how the fact that Rome wasn't its capital, can have weight on its name. As you see there, unless the Wikipedia administrators declare a naming policy for the empires of old, such as ERE, it is natural that there can be no absolute consensus in giving ERE's article the name Byzantine. Although there is no consensus, currently, there is a majority of people inclining towards the term Byzantine over ERE. While I accept this consensus by the regular editors of Wikipedia, it could be best if we have a naming policy adopted by the Administrators. --SilentResident (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I just checked the user Future Perfect at Sunrise's page, but there is no statement or information about his nationality. If did he reveal it to you, did he too gave you permission to reveal his nationality to me and to the public? I have to warn you in any case - it may be impolite to reveal by yourself the nationality/personal data of other Wiki users without their permission. Please be careful. Thanks :) --SilentResident (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
FP's user page shows his mother tongue as German. Presumably your point about H. Wolf is about the German-language literature, not about the literature in the Federal Republic of Germany, so even if he's Swiss or Austrian or something, the point remains.
"there is a debate, both inside Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia, regarding the naming policy of certain factions, such as the ERE": I assume that by "faction" you mean "state" or "polity". Everyone knows that neither "Byzantine" nor "Eastern Roman Empire" was the contemporary name, and that ERE is an accurate description. From there on, WP is inherently conservative about naming -- it waits until there is a consensus in the serious/scholarly literature. If there is still a "debate", then apparently there is not a consensus. I can't get too excited about it.
You say you are a "historian with decree". That is not a term used in English. Is this a misspelling of "degree"? And what do you mean by it? Do you have a doctorate in history? Are you a professor at a university? Do you publish scholarly research? Or do you mean that you have an undergraduate degree in history and are interested in it? In English, we would not normally call that a historian.
"Onomatology" in English usually means 'the study of proper names'. I think you mean 'terminology' or 'nomenclature' or simply 'naming convention'.
"...how the fact that Rome wasn't its capital, can have weight on its name." Huh? The name "Roman Empire" is a convention. As Voltaire said, the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. The emperors of Russia were called czars, i.e., Caesars, though they were not Roman. The Caribbean is called the West Indies. etc. etc. Logic is not the issue.
Your statement "unless the Wikipedia administrators declare a naming policy for the empires of old, such as ERE, it is natural that there can be no absolute consensus in giving ERE's article the name Byzantine" makes no sense. Please look up "consensus" -- it is not something that can be imposed, and is generally not "absolute". Anyway, administrators on Wikipedia have special administrative powers, but no more authority on the content of articles or to "declare a naming policy".
Mother tongue means nothing about the nationality of a person. The person in question, may very well be Swiss or Austrian, not really German. It is better to refrain from making assumptions regarding other people's nationalities. As for -logy thing, I am not talking about terminology, I am talking about onomatology. The case about ERE isn't really a naming convention issue, although it may seem as such. Nope, it isn't misspelled. When you complete the college or university, you are given a degree, a certificate, lets say a diploma. Nope, I am not a professor, it is false to assume that all the people with diploma in history are professors in their job. The degree testifies that the recipient has successfully completed a particular course of study in history, not what job the recipient does, even if many people with a degree in history become professors. If I am not mistaken, actually there have been naming policies in Wikipedia (like in the case of the Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia naming issue) and a such naming policy regarding certain Native American Indian articles, or ERE could greatly help, although I may be wrong, since I do not know about the procedures/conditions for adopting such policies and when/why exactly such policies are adopted, besides dealing with the frequency of edit wars. Also I am still looking for the Wikipedia rules regarding the priority of real name over historiographical terms for these factions. I admit I have some ignorance regarding some aspects of Wikipedia, and there is still a lot for me to learn about Wikipedia before I can ask for anything or delve deeper into this matter. I appreciate your interest, and I know there is still alot to be discussed, but I can't be of much help since I don't know Wikipedia very well, even after all those years of activity. (still learning...) :) --SilentResident (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Greece-Italy Relations details
You recently reverted my edits to this article. I have explained my edits on the talk page, and would be interested in your reply. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The removal of both edits and sources added by other users without a good explanation, is unacceptable, so your edits have been reverted. I replied to you in depth in the talk page of the article Greece-Italy Relations --SilentResident (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
The modification (including deletion) of edits added by other users is hardly unacceptable; it is part of the normal bold, revert, discuss cycle. I thought my edits were clear improvements, you disagreed and reverted, I have started explaining my edits, and I trust we will now discuss on the Talk page to hammer out a new and better version. --Macrakis (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Future Perfect reverted anything, which I had to re-revert, but improve further but removing the information that falls under the scope "tone" you have described in the Talk page. I think the page is much better when it has more info rather than lesser info. And in fact, I added some more info on the Culture section which was totally lacking or absent after the last changes. --SilentResident (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Re "the page is much better when it has more info rather than lesser info" -- it depends. More good, relevant, well-organized, well-written, and well-sourced info, sure. More words or fact-claims? Not an improvement in itself. --Macrakis (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, but the point you are missing here is that the Greece-Italy relations page was an underdeveloped article already, and the fact that some people keep deleting massively anything, without any regards to the content, isn't helping. While there needs to be quality, also there needs to be more information about them too. - Also, the lack of the information on the article isn't the only issue here. While doing edits, it is important that these edits improve quality rather than deteriorate it. For example, the leading paragraph lacks some quality wording after all these edits. So, lets see how can get the leading paragraph "well written":
The:
"Greece and Italy enjoy strong relations. They cooperate in many fields..."
has been changed into:
"Greco-Italian relations refer to bilateral foreign relations between Greece (link) and Italy (link). The two countries enjoy strong diplomatic relations, cooperate in many fields..."
It is very important that while we improve the articles to include more information for the sake of the readers, also help the readers in their navigation across the wiki. For example, adding links to the pages of Italy and Greece in the article itself (aside from the links present already on the infobox's map), doesn't hurt. Also the better wording helps the overall quality of the article - because quality information isn't sufficient by itself if not presented on the article in a proper manner. So I applied the aforementioned changers to the article, and I can say, the article is very good and more professionally-looking. :) Thank you for the help, and really, after your and my edits the article is much better than it was, lets say, a week ago. I really appreciate when I see underdeveloped articles getting more attention. --SilentResident (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
At the "Albanians " article it says that the total number is obtained as the sum of the referenced populations (lowest and highest figures) below in the infobox.The highest sum is 12 million,while you put it 8.5 million.Can you explain why?Rolandi+ (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox where the total population of Albanians worldwide is displayed, if you check the Turkey section of the population figures, you will notice that someone changed the official and sourced number of 1.300.000 Albanians living in Turkey to 5.000.000, without providing us with a reliable source explaining this sharp increase of the Albanian population in Turkey. This raised suspicions as 3.500.000 citizens is not something that appears magically. It is a very big number, and therefore this forced me to conduct some research on this matter. What I found is that, the sources, both official and unofficial ones, all agree that the Albanians in Turkey are nowhere near the number of five million. For example, the 2012 edition of the CIA World Factbook estimates that the Albanians in Turkey, or Turks of Albanian origin number mostly 500,000 - 1.300.000. Also, a 2008 report from the Turkish National Security Council (MGK) says that approximately 1,3 Million people of Albanian ancestry live in Turkey. For more details, you can check the page in Wikipedia dedicated to this matter: Albanians in Turkey. Given this, I can not understand how did the 1.3 million Albanians in Turkey rose magically to 5 millions like that. The user who put the claim of 5.000.000 Albanians in Turkey, will need reliable sources to explain this sharp increase of Albanians in Turkey. The 5 millions is a dubious figure, since recent demographic or political events in the region do not explain this sudden and sharp increase either. If someone believes that there are really 5 million Albanians in Turkey today, will have to provide us with more reliable sources. So far, the official Turkish sources, as well as the unofficial foreign sources, place the number to about 1 million and 300 thousands. --SilentResident (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that there are some sources that put the number at 500000 doesn't mean that 5mln in false.It refers to all albanians,even to the turkified ones (they have albanian ancestry).500000 can speak albanian fluently,1.3 mln indentify themselves only as "albanians" .Rolandi+ (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have read sources that claim there are 8.000.000 Albanians in Turkey today, but this is not the point here. You need to provide reliable sources because the number of 5.000.000 is very big and not confirmed by any government or NGO. The Turkish authorities and the NGOs, and the American agencies place the number of the Albanians, including the Turks of Albanian ancestry, around 1.300.000. Can you please give us reliable sources proving that there are really that many more Albanians in this country?--SilentResident (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The American agencies (CIA FACTBOOK ) use (or better said cite ) the Turkish authorities ,which are part of turkification policy.However thaose figures are included at the article as part of Wikipedia's neutrality ,also there is the reference about 5 mln.It is from a well-known author and scholar.Also please don't use Wikipedia as a source.Don't delete well-established informations without concensus.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This is your personal view and this does not validate your claims. You still need provide us with reliable sources that back your claim for 5.000.000 Albanians living in Turkey. Such big population figure differences need to be sourced. Please can you provide us with reliable sources? In the article's talkpage? Thank you. --SilentResident (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Your recent editing history at Albanians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ RobTalk21:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Who said you added? I said you edited. Please read more carefully before accusing others of lying. And my advice to you: next time please try using the Talk page before going into edit wars with others. --SilentResident (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you but my talk page isn't the appropriate forum for improving the article. Please post your findings to the article's relevant talk page where the matter is discussed. And a concensus can be achieved when all parties agree on a solution while taking in account their worries and concerns. And so, I brought the matter to the article's page but you have ignored it. Is that my fault? You have ignored the article's talk page and resorted to edit revert war. Your first respond to the talk page came after the edit revert war was over. Check the Talk Page's history. I brought the matter here around 22:32 of 14 July 2015 but, you, instead of going to the talkpage, you have chose to continue the edit revert war to the end. Your initial response in the Talkpage was after the edit war, at 23:00, 14 July 2015. Is that my fault that you are resorting to edit wars rather than using the talk page? Please put the facts straight. --SilentResident (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. The thing that i would say with assistance is to remind some editors (though much has already been discussed about Rolandi, as you would have read my posts in the administrators board there are other editors) to stick by the rules and not to be dismissive about sources that are peer reviewed because they are not to ones liking, yet relevant to the article.Resnjari (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits at the Ecumenical Patriarch[ate] articles
Hi SR. Given the amount of warnings you have been getting, including the latest edit-warring report, I advise you to take the article off your watchlist. You have done your part in keeping the article free of POV and unreliable information. But it seems you are getting preferential treatment in that you feature more prominently in the latest 3RR report than the dynamic IP which is editing disruptively, including your name being featured in the header of the report with your reverts being numbered while the IP and its socks getting described more discreetly in prose. Longterm edit-warring since 2014 inflating the numbers of Greeks in Turkey is also being ignored while your justified revert is counted against you without appreciation of the problems of inflating the number of Greeks in Turkey from 4,000 to 300,000. Similarly the vandalistic suppression by the IP of the reliably sourced numbers of Greeks in Albania from 200,000 to a mere 27,000 gets no mention in the edit-warring report against you. It is a tough time for someone who cares about quality of content such as yourself. I hear you. But all these reports and warnings look to me like a sure sign that your efforts to keep the content of the article safe from manipulation are not appreciated while at the same time you risk greatly being blocked. At the same time edit-warring, disruptive dynamic IPs with multiple socks get treated better than you. We need more content-aware editors in the Balkans area who can initiate fair reports but until we get them I advise you to stay off the article. Take care and thank you for your efforts. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Content is supposed to be the primary concern for the editors of this project but content is very often ignored or takes second place to other pursuits; power is an often-cited example. It is not an optimal approach to building an encyclopedia but one has to make do with what he is dealt with and hope things improve. One way to do that would be making sure that content creators or editors who care about content are also present in other areas of the project not only article space. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις20:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
SR, I have also been saddened to see what has been going on, now that I am aware of it, and have very much the same initial reaction to the ANEW action that DrK has expressed. In 2 years here, I also have had a share of contentious situations in which I have participated, though I have not had to suffer being accused falsely in a formal adminstrator action by a young editor who apparently understands little in this area. I would very much like to encourage you (if I may) to remain on WP and continue your presence where you see fit. I think DrK has good points, but I also know how much we need content-aware editors, especially in areas that remain obscure to most westerners, and I don't think I'd go so far as to withdraw from an article just because there was trouble. Now, he is certainly right that people sometimes get banned wrongly, so I would recommend keeping a profile that is as remote from the areas of contention as you can be: meaning, "do one revert at most" when necessary, and always open a talk page section immediately as you do. If some disruptive editor then un-reverts and does not respond on the talk page, it is that editor who has failed to pursue the perfectly legitimate opening you have created (to which s/he is obligated to respond), and you are then in a readily defensible position should any trouble arise later. I would then not do any more reverting, but would continue complaining on the talk page, using the "u" or "ping" templates to the offending editor to guarantee his attention. The editing community as a whole is the group that is responsible for the article, not you alone, and the way in which they respond (or fail to do so) is what then gets into the editing record. So don't feel you must be a single defender alone. If a community will not respond, there is not much any individual can do about it, and that is the time to consider withdrawing. But until then, let the editing record absorb your efforts to address any problem, and then that record will there to ready for anyone to examine later, if that should prove desirable. Problem editing is reportable, and you can be the reporter, using this trail to make your case. Don't worry about the article short term. Let things play out a bit. Then when you can, apply pressure in a vulnerable spot that has been revealed by your patience. When someone is playing a power game against you, one may need to resort to such strategies. But always try to leave them behind once you have got through a crisis, because they surely don't represent the way that the WP originators envisioned having things work either. If at any time, something disturbs you too much, walk away. I have taken breaks from WP of several months after such occurrences. But I'm here now, and therein lies the tale. The trick is to care about making a contribution enough to do your best, and also enough to drop the whole thing - because ultimately, other editors must also make a place for us if we are to make any place for ourselves. But WP is a big place, and we can move when we need to. Hope this helps. Evensteven (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Δρ.Κ., exactly like how you said it. Sometimes unfortunately I am having the impression that the decisions, actions and powers in Wikipedia obscure the importance of quality content in the articles. Quantity often overshadows quality and Wikipedia must not fall to this trap. Personally speaking, I am afraid that, in the long-term, this can overshadow the purpose for which Wikipedia was founded in the first place, as a free, neutral and reliable encyclopedia for everyone to read. The Wikipedia creators are often forgetting that the "contribution to Wikipedia" has to follow some ethics and should be done in a responsible and positive way, not disruptively. It seems all these anonymous users with the multiple socks do not care about that, at all. And it seems that the Wikipedia does not really defend its own registered users for just trying to protect the articles from vandalism. --SilentResident (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Evensteven, I admit I haven't thought really about it. This is a nice advice you gave to me here, I didn't knew about the Teplate "U" or "Ping" for drawing the offensive editor's attention to the talk page. That is very very useful to know. And yes, I think it is time for me to stop worrying so much about the short-term of an article's issues. Thank you alot, both Dr.K and Evensteven, thank you both, I will stay in Wikipedia, and next time I will try my best to familiarize with new strategies in dealing with offensive and disruptive editors. Again thank you for your advices. --SilentResident (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven: My dear friend Steven thank you for your sage advice. As usual I agree with you on most points, save the point about not returning to the article. I will therefore elaborate although not extensively since I would rather see this discussion conclude as speedily as possible. The reason I advised SR thus is that once you become the recipient of repeated notifications, warnings etc. which then escalate to reports all coming from the same source then you have to realise that there is a problem. The problem is compounded when you see random, socking, disruptive IPs getting better treatment than you. If one is also a content maintainer and content creator, as SR is, and sees that content evaluation does not play any role at all in the reporting, leading to disruptive sock IPs being evaluated on an equal footing with his contributions and even given better treatment, then this is a sure sign that his contributions are not given any value. One has to wonder why SR even bothered to register as an editor. This approach to reporting is a sign of indifference to content. However, although the process is indifferent to content it is not indifferent to power accumulation. The latter is a powerful motivator and is being pursued quite often. SR has to re-evaluate his contributions here based on these facts. But there is another consequence to this analysis. Once someone becomes the recipient of such content-deprecating attention, warnings and reports then he becomes devalued as an editor. One has to wonder. Is it worth it to risk a block reverting misinformation when the system does not adequately respond to content-aware editors? The question becomes more pressing if someone gets blocked and someone else benefits from that block in whatever they pursue. I would suggest that SR should not risk becoming the target under such restrictive, confining and content-adverse circumstances. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις00:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
You know something? Being blocked is certainly unfortunate. But being blocked for the wrong reasons is even worse than that. But the worst of all is to realize that in Wikipedia, such cases can even happen. Which I think is the reason behind Wikipedia losing many content-ware editors in the past 5 years. After all, if a website wants to attract more content-ware editors to contribute to it, it has to work towards that direction: adopt a more positive attitude towards these editors and encourage them for their contributions, not terrorize them with reports and blocks. This is just my personal opinion. --SilentResident (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I do sympathize. At bottom though, WP is an experiment, not yet proven, although even with its imperfections, it's cool, a great idea. I suppose I have my own selfish reasons for participating, because it's a place where I am able to contribute something even when other opportunities have diminished for me. But my participation is also an experiment, an ongoing one. I have no interest whatever in any of the standard WP status symbols, and consider myself to be as free to choose my operation here as the rules would have it in theory. Therefore, I'm unwilling to have anyone wrap me up in a power struggle, or to bind me by an application of power. I think the policies are well conceived, fair, and constructive, and I willingly submit to those. They are what makes the WP idea feasible at all, and what makes the idea worthwhile. So if they don't prevail ultimately, then I consider WP to have come to a dead end, and I would have nothing to lose in departing. In the meantime, if something gets personal against me sometime and I end up blocked, I don't feel I'll have lost anything worthwhile then either. I've been treated that way a lot in my life, and shown the door. But I've been treated better a lot too, and know that when one door closes, another opens. The way that WP treats its own editors, through administrative discipline or not, is a problem that is not mine to solve, nor is it of an interest to me. I came to work on articles, not babysit or police. I hope we get good police, because I'd like to continue working on articles. But I really have nothing to lose personally if not. So just as I'm free to stay, I'm equally free to go at any time.
Interestingly, this also makes me almost entirely free to act (within the policies), whether or not it serves how I am perceived here, and that gives me options that not everyone else might like to take when faced with accusation or the like. That might sound like I could choose to fight, even suicidally, but I'm not much interested in fighting. I might go to it with bare knuckles, but I might lie down or walk away. It depends on the situation. If that were to make an opponent more wary, I'd say they had some good sense. But winning arguments is never my fundamental object. Given an option, I'd rather make a friend. And backed into a corner, I'll stand only on ground that I believe in, and cede much acreage that another seems to want more. If the acreage is an article, that's WP's worry more than mine. All I can do is represent the best interests of the article, and I never lose sight of the fact that I am only one representative and have only the power of one editor, and the whole to which I am contributing is not within my power (alone) to protect. We sink or swim together, so I need never be against anyone. The rats must fend for themselves. If I manage to lead any of them to sink themselves, they have only themselves to blame for following. If they don't follow, there may be hope for them, for which I'd be glad. So you see, one's greatest vulnerability is the thing you want to get out of editing. If we get a good encyclopedia here one day, I think that'll be great. But the only thing I want is to experiment, to see and watch if it'll happen. In the mean time, it's a pleasure dealing with the fine editors who are here, and that's its own reward.
Well said Eventeven. Thank you for your philosophical analysis and for your kind comments. SR, thank you for your hospitality here and best of luck. Btw, I have changed the section title back to my original one. If you don't mind I prefer that it stays in the brief form that I wrote when I originally created this section which I think represents a wider diversity of issues than merely disruptive editors. Changing it makes it seem as if I wrote it when I did not. Cheers. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις09:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah noted. Thank you all for your advices. Much appreciated, and I am glad to have ever talked to you, dear Wiki users. If you need anything, just ask here and I will do my best to help in any way I can. :-) --SilentResident (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you bery much SR for your kind comments. The same holds for you. If you need anything, I'm just around the wiki-corner. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις10:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven, @Δρ.Κ. you have kindly offered to assist me if need arises in the future, although I hoped I couldn't have a need for that, at least not anytime soon. It seems the nightmarish case with the article Greeks for which we talked above about how to deal with such cases the best way possible, it makes a comeback to this day: after the false report in the Administrator Noticeboard, I get Wiki users falsely accusing me for sockpuppeting(!) in my talk page (see new section in my talkpage, below). If all what happened in Wikipedia lately didn't test my patience enough, this sure is going to test it. So, someone is falsely accusing me for sockpuppeting. How to brush off such accusations? How to prove that I, SilentResident, have nothing to do with that IP address the user accused me for sockpuppeting? And because such accusations are false and possibly done in purpose, how can I make these pay for their false accusations which I suspect are concealed personal attacks under the belt against me? --SilentResident (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing, Breaking the spirit of the 3rr
While perusing through a talk page I saw this: [5]. Keep in mind that using an IP address to canvas and encourage other editors to join your edit war is a wildly broken way to attempt to swing things in your favor. Generally, posting with an IP instead of your account is considered sockpuppeting, but using it to recruit people to engage in an edit war is ridiculous. I realize this is extremely late. That is why there is no official warning or ANI discussion. In the future, make sure this does not happen. Jcmcc (Talk) 19:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Jcmcc450 Your comments should be addressed to the IP. SilentResident has no connection to the IP as it will become evident should you choose to compare the IP edits with those of SilentResident. If you think the IP is the IP sock of SR please supply your evidence otherwise you should retract your warning. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις18:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hm. You're right. Without *hard* evidence, I have no place making that type of accusation. I simply lined up timestamps. Ill place it on the IP instead. Don't take it personally SilentResident, I have nothing against you. I apologize for the inconvenience. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I only pray this whole story with the article Greeks ends here once and for all, it is getting ridiculous -_- Your apology is accepted, but please next time be more careful, if false accusations, reports and such a hostile climate prevail like that, I doubt there will be anyone left in Wikipedia anymore -_- Take care. --SilentResident (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jcmcc450: Not only there is no hard evidence about any connection between SR and the IP, the actual evidence points in the opposite direction. If you check, the IP is a dynamic one and used various IP socks to add doubtful stats to the article. As you can establish by further checking, SR reverted the edits of the IP and its socks and then one IP sock went to Rolandi to seek help against SR. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jcmcc450, like how Dr.K explained (much better than I could do), what you claimed, makes absolutely no sense. Its like claiming that I sockpuppet the IP of which the edits I reverted. So, in sort, you were claiming that I am edit warring myself(!) and that I call others for help against... myself(!). I do not mean to offend you, but this makes absolutely no sense. Next time be more careful, accusing someone of sockpuppeting is not only a serious claim, but if proven to be false, it can lead to embarrassment or/and other unforeseen consequences. I hope you have a good day. --SilentResident (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I thank Jcmcc450 for the retraction of the allegation of warring, which has been shown to be unjustified. Please note that the same accusation was made and refuted at WP:AN3. Let it be known to users who may seek to push an agenda by making repeated false accusations against SilentResident or any other editor that they also can be held accountable at any Administrator's Noticeboard action, and that such accusation, if proven false, is considered to be a serious offense under WP policy. Make sure you get your facts straight. False accusation works against both the policy and interests of WP, even if an editor brings such a charge without ill intention. I would recommend to administrators that they consider the possibility of requiring full and public retractions of any false charge by the accusing editor, at all relevant pages, as a matter of setting the record straight, and that that should be a condition of the accusing editor's continuation here in good standing. Failing such editor's retraction, the administrators could themselves supply the retractions similarly, as editorial reputation is a key element to productive work and ought to be accorded protection of its own. Therefore, I draw EdJohnston's attention to this suggestion (not knowing where else to put the suggestion itself), hoping that it may prove useful. Evensteven (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement request
Per your request, I've created an Arbitration enforcement request WP:AE#19999o. You may wish to make some clarifying statements to the enforcement administrators there. Regards Blackmane (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Blackmane: thank you for doing this, and also, thank you for informing me about article in question being subject to WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Thank you and I appreciate what you have done for me. I appreciate your patience with an inexperienced person such as me, and I apologize for my lack of experience on such matters. :) --SilentResident (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Most welcome. Please note that the admins at AE may redirect you back to ANI or to ANEW at their discretion. I recommend you make a statement at the AE request to clarify the report as I am not familiar with the background. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Boson: Ah thanks for bringing to my attention this. I checked and indeed I missed reading the following paragraph: "The Project does not take responsibility for areas of Europe already covered by a project. ". Dear Boson, thank you very very much for your time to notify me of that. I will correct this asap. Thank you for your time. Regards, --SilentResident (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you reverted yourself here without being sure why! Your suspicion was right, the space has a function. It secures that the article in question (in this case "Pella") is listed first on the Category page, before the alphabetical sorting, as here. This is often done to secure that main article about the subject of the category is listed first for easy access. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wuerzele:That is from Frontex's official website: http://frontex.europa.eu/operations/archive-of-operations/8HPltg which gives you some brief info about the operation and confirms that indeed there is such an operation by that name (Poseidon). Which is the reason I felt this was noteworthy enough to be added to the article about Frontex. Of course the new section needs further improvements in both 1) citations and 2) information, coz it was just added, but I think other people can do the job better than I did on that matter. Have a good day. :) --SilentResident (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Claims that are referenced only with a url, also called raw links, like you did on Frontex, are subject to WP:link rot. To learn what a full reference is, please check WP:CITEHOW and provide the missing information, including the date of publication.
In 1, 2, latest 3 years your bare link references will be dead, and then the person "...with the right to access the accumulated knowledge of humanity" cannot.
Besides url and title, please state at an absolute minimum:
Hello, Kablammo. You have not understood what I mean by the term "Unexplained Removal" and this is my fault because I should have had a more detailed explanation added to my Revert Summary. Here we go: What you have insisted in your Summary is to MOVE the information, which is correct and it should have been moved. I absolutely agree with you on that, and this information does not comply with the Info box's rules. But your actions were different from what you have stated in your Summary. More precisely, your Edit which I have reverted, had the information not moved (as stated) but removed entirely from the article. And therefore the removal was unexplained, I had to revert your edit back to the last version for until the movie is properly done. If the information in question has already been moved around in compliance with your Summary, then, I am sorry and feel free to revert its temporary restoration back to the info box by me. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the note, SR. Unfortunately the infobox on this article has been battled over in the past, with partisans of one "side" selecting figures and listing data which they perceive as shining a more favorable light on their "side"-- this, for an action which occurred over five centuries ago. (I'm not saying you did that, I mention it as one of the reasons this infobox is so bloated.) And I am not challenging the quality of your research or validity of the data, only its location. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Kablammo, in all case, if you are disputing or questioning any data and sources, it is better that your bring the matter to an article's relevant talk page rather than deleting/removing them by yourself. There may be or not be content we disagree with or feel that it is not right, but it is not upon us to unilaterally decide what is good and what not for a page. The best thing you can do is to use the Talk Page and coordinate your work with other users/editors, and consulate with them before making any debatable changes to an article. Cooperation and consensus among the editors of different backgrounds in Wikipedia is vital for its future. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It is recommended that in the event of a dispute, the users follow the Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines, and reach a Consensus instead of resorting to threats on the talk pages of other users. Edit warring and threatening other users with blocks in the event of a dispute, is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach, and thus, risks being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This was explained to you on the talk page. You were warned for OR:ing. I have yet to see you actually rebut this, instead you seem more bent on accusing me of disruption, as if disruption by other editors is an excuse to break the no original research policy. Also, I would appreciate if you refrained from making false accusations about me. I did not break the 3RR. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid you have not understood that the lead of the article should present every important information from the main body of the article. Alexikoua has provided sources on this matter which clearly is not OR:ing, and still, in spite of this you have chosen once again, in later edits, to REMOVE COMPLETELY these sources. What you have done is: 1) Unexplained removal of Alexikoua's sources, 2) Disruptive edits, 3) 3RR breach, 4) violation of WP:Lead, 5) manipulation of sources, 6) Failed to get the Point, 7) POV edits with positions expressed by ultranationalist political parties in Albania, 8) You have failed to reach a consensus with other community members in the article's Talk Page for your edits and insisted with them in spite of objections and concerns expressed by the others. And more. Do I have to explain what you have done? My advice to you as a friend: you have a last chance. Think twice before keeping on with this behavior, because in a such event, you will be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Have a good day, DevilWearsBrioni. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to point me to the source that makes the claim that Greek state policy was a consequence of Muslim Chams burning Christian villages. This is what you wrote: "many of the Muslim Chams that were inhabiting western Epirus, sided with the Ottomans against the advancing Greeks and had formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements and towns, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept a Greek rule in the region. This led the Greek state to adopt policies that aimed to drive out Muslim Chams from their territory".
Please point me to a specific sentence (or two!) which supports the bolded part. That's all I'm asking for and I'll gladly concede that you were not OR:ing if you in fact can show me this. Let's keep this factual. As for 3RR Breach (still no evidence, just accusations), manipulation of sources (again, no evidence), positions expressed by ultranationalist political parties in Albania, etc, I would be very curious to see how your evidence for these accusations fare on the Administrator's noticeboard. By initiating a report, you're required to provide evidence, and consequently it would make it a lot easier for me to refute, instead of going about it this way where you can accuse me of all possible things without repercussions. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The Tsoutsoumpis' sources about the Greek government's responses to Cham Albanian raiding and burning the Greek villages by adopting policies against them, such as arming Greek guerillas in the regions where Chams lived, covers the first sentence. The second is from Baltsioti's sources which describe the Greek government's mistrust of the Chams eventually leading them adopt policies of expelling them from Epirus. As you can see, this is not a case of OR:ing at all. What case is this? Judging from the complete removal of the first half of the paragraph, it seems you were not happy with this addition. For reasons that have to do with certain political views and beliefs? Or you think it was too big and made the lead too bloated? Note that it was pretty short phrase, as supposed as per WP:Lead, nor a full-scale copy from what is said on the main body. Or maybe you saw the phrase containing different implications and that due to the complexity of the events of that time, a bigger and more precise phrase could clear things out for you? Maybe yes. But your actions contradict this. Your actions to remove this all together, and even the sources for it when they were added by Alexikoua later. Alexikoua took that bolded phrase in question and re-worded it precisely to leave no room for misunderstanding about this, accompanied with the sources, and that could have covered any concerns, but even so, you have reverted his edits. Instead of helping our efforts in summarizing the article into the lead, you have blocked the other people's efforts in that direction, even when the sources were provided. Sorry to say but your OR:ing accusation is not convincing, and your behavior contrasts that of Alexikoua and Resnjari. Resnjari and Alexikoua contribute positively by noting where a phrase could have any problems, and improve upon it with precise re-wording, to make it BETTER, not remove it. And you? You just click on revert button all the time... How is that helping, dear DevilWearsBrioni? How? With this behavior of yours, you are giving the impression that you are the owner of the article and thus, you decide what stays and what not, without consulting with others first, and without tolerating their contributions. Remember the last time I have warned you? If you ever try to remove these sources again, you will be reported and blocked from editing this page. This is not OR:ing and you may refuse to get the point even now for the lead, my friend, but this behavior cannot be tolerated. I am watching the page closely from now and on and it is on my watch list. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, Tsoutsoumpis was introduced as a source by Alexikoua after I had warned you for OR:ing. You never cited him when you added ”This led the Greek state to adopt policies that aimed to drive out Muslim Chams from their territory”, so I fail to see how bringing up Tsoutsoumpis now is a valid argument. In fact, it's quite telling that you bring up Tsoutsoumpis, it shows you don't have a leg to stand on.
Second, you are distorting what Tsoutsoumpis says. He does not claim that Greek state policy was adopted as a consequence of the burning of Christian villages, that’s merely your interpretation and personal analysis. Instead, he asserts that local civillians were armed by the Greek and Ottoman governments; Muslim bands raided villages, and ”Greek irregulars responded in kind from January 1913 onwards”. Apart from the fact that you’re falsely equating Muslim bands with Muslim Chams, interpreting the ”arming of Greek irregulars as a response to Muslim bands raiding villages” as a form of ”Greek state policy which aimed to drive out Muslim Chams”, is arguably a desperate and farfetched attempt to correlate the two. Not only that, you are demonstrably wrong. Baltsiotis writes that state policy was "embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the Interwar period". Consequently, even if you want to argue that arming irregulars during a war is a form of state policy, the time periods do not coincide.
As for Baltsiotis and ”the Greek government's mistrust of the Chams eventually leading them adopt policies of expelling them from Epirus”: can you point me to the specific sentence? Where does Baltsiotis make the claim that state policies were adopted as a consequence of village burnings? Also, when and how did this ”mistrust” emerge according to Baltsiotis? Perhaps before the 19th century?
”Yet this situation was not a novelty. Prior to this period, Chamouria was already a nuisance both for the Greek state and the Christians of Epirus who identified themselves as Greeks.[…] Concealing the existence of the Albanian language appeared as a concept as soon as the possibility of Greek expansion into Epirus appeared. Dimitrios Hassiotis, a historian and politician who supported Greek claims, writes in 1887 that in the whole of the Chamouria region, only in Paramythia do “some of the inhabitants understand the Albanian language for commercial reasons” (author’s emphasis). The initial distortion of facts was followed by an effort to account for the allegedly “occasional” use of Albanian. This “appeal to hope” is not only applied to the distortion of the linguistic reality of the area as perceived by non natives, but is extended to a wider spectrum of facts and evaluations. An example of the way this “appeal to hope” was accepted as reality is that Greek officers in the interwar period truly believe that Italy and “Albanian propaganda” are to blame for the reactions of the Muslims in Chamouria and not Greek policies implemented in the area.”
"The existence of a region (Chamouria) whose population was roughly half Muslim and almost entirely Albanian speaking was considered a serious problem for the Greek state, which had to be confronted both practically and discursively. Every pro-Albanian movement in these areas had to be eliminated by all means."
”The behavior of the Greek Army, in conjunction with the legislation implemented at the time, deeply affected the Muslims and confirmed the first serious fissure between the Christian communities and the Greek State on one side, and the Muslim communities on the other. Tensions between Muslims and Christians in the area began in the late 19th century when the Christian element gradually improved its financial and social status.”
”For a more detailed narration of the fighting and the battles that occurred in the area during late 1912, the use of local population and the burning of villages by both sides see K. D. Sterghiopoulos”
On the talk page I have argued that both sides engaged in burning villages. Yet, you maintain that it's important to mention that Muslim Chams burned Christian Orthodox settlements in the lede. Why is that? Do you intend to show and suggest that these events caused the Greek state to adopt discriminative policies against Muslim Chams, and will you be able to explain on the OR/NPOV noticeboard how this reasoning isn't suggestive/UNDUE and POV/OR? Furthermore, could you tell me why the following is POV: "Though at first reluctant in joining Ottoman forces, Muslim Chams – regarded as enemies by the Greek army – sided with the Ottomans in late 1912, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces, giving rise to local conflicts." Does this sentence alone not encapsulate the events that transpired? What is specifically missing there? The burning of villages committed by both sides? Or by only one side?
Lastly, like I've told you before, I certainly don't mind admin intervention and I would have preferred it if you already went ahead with it. Repeating it ad nauseam does not help your case. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep sure, keep telling yourself this and that. I am sorry, but the Administrators won't like when any invalid and non-existent cases of OR:ing are used to justify any edit warring attitudes and disruptive behaviors of your part on Wikipedia. I could be very excited to see how such an argument can make any sense to anyone, and especially to the Admins.
And please do not continue with your endless arguments, it became clear and evident that this never-ending debate won't get anywhere. I could appreciate if my talk page is kept practical and compact. Thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Balkan Wars
"As soon as the Balkan Wars started and conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Greece occurred, the Greek side attempted to approach the local Muslim representatives in order to discuss the possibility of a Greek-Albanian alliance. However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia, Fanari and Filiates."
Does this mean that Muslim Chams had already (meaning as soon as the Balkan wars started) formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements? Is that really what Pitouli-Kitso claims? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This is a question just for me, or are you opening up a discussion? I think it is more useful and practical to raise discussions about an article, on that article's relevant talk page, which is visited by multiple people at a time, instead of the user's personal talk pages. The more people that can get involved into a discussion, the better. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, you were asking this question in relation to the ongoing discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard? My replies will be posted there (on the ANI), not here (on this Talk Page), to keep the discussion in one place and as compact as possible. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. I removed your request for arbitration enforcement because you removed major sections of the template you need to follow, plus it was way too long. Please make sure to include necessary information like confirmation you notified the person you're bringing to AE. Make your statement succinct and clear. Remember, AE is only for enforcing arbitration decisions, like the application of discretionary sanctions in relevant topic areas. You're free to re-submit whenever you like, but please follow the proper format so commenting admins can easily understand the situation. If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like you picked the wrong template. You want the "Click here to add a new enforcement request" one. Once you click it, it'll open a page with sections already there. Fill in the information it asks for. It should look like this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Good morning. What exactly do you mean "false narrative you've created about me"? To say this, is to accuse me of assuming bad faith of my part. Why you just don't stop with your accusations? First these false OR accusations, and now Bad Faith? -- SILENTRESIDENT11:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This should be a comic:
Person A: Person B has ruined our Wikipedia lives and I can't withstand this odd kind of persecution anymore. Lately I am seriously considering quitting the Wikipedia Project just because of all this, as the stress Person B is causing with his disruptive attitude towards the other users, including me, has pushed everyone to the edge, as you can see from the tone of our messages towards that person who is not willing to ever stop. [More accusations...]
Person B: I would like to rebut the false narrative created about me.
Person A: HOW DARE YOU YOU ACCUSE ME OF ASSUMING BAD FAITH?!? Stop these accusations!
You wrote a 5,000+ char report about me at ANI, and pestered various pages with how I should be blocked from editing, and how everyone is tired of my "disruptive attitude" and now you're playing the victim? I read your accusations, now I'd like a platform to rebut them. Don't you think that's fair? You clearly feel persecuted for some reason, the only way to solve this would be admin intervention. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@DevilWearsBrioni: I have decided to withdraw the AE Report, as it came to my notice that there was no prior ARBMAC warning given to you, neither in your talk page, nor in any of our discussions. Because of the lack of any ARBMAC warnings in the past, you won't be reported and I have the report withdrawn. However, it is advised that the next time you act more cautiously and avoid any disruptive behaviors on Balkan-related topics, as they are under ARBMAC. Now that you know this, and you are aware of ARBMAC, I hope you refrain from violating them, because breaching them will get you reported to the AE and an Administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on you if you repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I can assure you that I was already aware of ARBMAC. I will continue editing the Cham expulsion page; false narratives, temper tantrums, lies and half-truths will not discourage me from editing. As such, it is advised that you actually go through with the report. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
DWB
I'm afraid that DWB is begging for his report against him. His last desperate attempt to ignore all past noticeboards&rules will make his future in wikipedia very short indeed.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: Yes I know. What could I do? Never in my life seen something like that. How many times did DevilWearsBrioni raised the OR case the one or the other way? 8? 9 times? 10? I am losing count. I am unsure. I just asked now Robert McClenon for his advise on what options are available for such situations (including Arbitation Enforcement). Do you have any ideas? Is the AE the only option? -- SILENTRESIDENT20:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Expulsion of Cham Albanians". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 October 2016.
On the one hand, I agree that DevilWearsBrioni is being stubborn. On the other hand, I would prefer to see this settled in some way other than Arbitration Enforcement, and the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement are likely to check whether you have exhausted all prior remedies. DWB is not the only editor who is tagging the article; one other editor also is, even though DWB is the more stubborn. I would suggest requesting formal mediation as the last step before Arbitration Enforcement. It might work. If not, you know that you have tried it. You could also ask the tagging editors exactly what text they think should be changed, and whether they will submit to a Request for Comments. Just tagging is not a long-term solution for any article. Ask what they want, and whether they are willing either to resort to formal mediation or to a Request for Comments. I do think that the tagging is tendentious, but you haven't exhausted your options yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:With all due respect Robert, but if you actually take a look at the talk page, where I’ve clarified, you’ll notice why I restored the tags. Stubbornness is continiously removing the tags and ignoring the concerns I raise, while simultaneously asking me to clarify. SilentResident is fully aware of the fact that both I and Resnjari don’t consider the lede neutral, yet this doesn’t stop SilentResident and Alexikoua from removing the neutrality tag.
Formal meditation would not solve anything as this does not boil down to a single content dispute, rather it’s a wide spectrum of content disputes that arise as a consequence of… well, I’d argue that AE is the appropriate place for that discussion. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I assume that DWB's claim about stubborn activity refers actually to user:Resnjari's sterile reverts, who reached 5rvs in less than 24h. I've warned him to self rv, else a report will be unavoidable.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Formal mediation is appropriate when there are multiple content disputes. Informal mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard does not always work well in complex content disputes. This appears to be a complex content dispute with multiple parts, of the sort for which formal mediation would be appropriate. Any editor who thinks that their own conduct has been good and that other editors have been stubborn and disruptive is free to request WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, and Arbitration Enforcement is quicker and more decisive when the area is subject to discretionary sanctions. However, Arbitration Enforcement cannot resolve the content dispute, only restrict what editors can be involved in the dispute, typically by topic-banning some of them. I see this as an appropriate case for formal mediation. However, anyone who wants Arbitration Enforcement is free to request it, but should first read the boomerang essay. This is a good case for formal mediation. I suggest requesting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I am really stressed with all this. Some editors here certainly do not know how to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and as result of this, the dispute is becoming more and more like a Lernean Hydra; solving one dispute seems to produce more disputes in its place. I am many years in Wikipedia and have seen nothing like this before. Bias, failure to reach a consensus, ramming content into the article without consulting with all parties, multiple 3RR breaches... Really, I am aware that every editor here believes his opinions/positions to be just, right, correct, and valid while regards the opinions/positions of the other editors to be wrong, unfair, double standards or invalid. But what the editors here are missing is their actions being not appropriate for a site such as Wikipedia. This is not a personal blogspot where anyone could impose his views to other editors. Wikipedia has clear rules and guidelines for everyone to follow in resolving debates and disputes. We can't, everytime a dispute arises on Expulsion of Cham Albanians, to fail reaching a consensus and constantly reach deadlocks. If the AE is an option, then so be it. But do not expect that such unencyclopedic behavior to not affect your positions in the long-term. For our actions, there are consequences. Dear editors, do not pretend that I haven't warned you. Wikipedia is not a playground, especially its ARBMAC-protected articles. That is all I have to say. -- SILENTRESIDENT16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I find the argument that Arbitration Enforcement will be a better solution to this complex set of content disputes than formal mediation to be strange. Arbitration Enforcement won't settle any content disputes. What it may do is to topic-ban or block some editors. That may be necessary, and it appears increasingly likely that it is necessary, due to the intransigence of a few editors, but does anyone really think that topic-bans and blocks are the best way to resolve content disputes? Does anyone really think that edit-warring and tagging are the best way to resolve content disputes? Tagging doesn't resolve anything; it only identifies a problem that needs solving. (At this point, I will say that anyone who tags this article without providing an alternate version that will resolve the controversy is being disruptive. That is my opinion.) Mediation might work. Arbitration Enforcement might work, but only if the real problem is conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe AE to be the best way for solving problems. If I really believed the AE to be the magic wand in solving all problems, now the AE report could have been filled already. But thing is, I did not fill it with the belief that the dialog between editors could be more productive than an AE report could be. I believe the dialog between editors can be more effective and more rewarding than Arbitration Enforcements. Hence why I am disappointed now, because I really had my hopes that things could have had taken a different turn now. With dialog, is much easier to reach consensus and agree together on balanced chances in sensitive and POV-prone articles. Dialog could ensure that the content in the article could have as minimal POV and bias as possible, while at same time, maintaining as more information for the reader as possible, with all different opinions presented in an way that the article remains neutral in its tone.
Thing here is, the AE does NOT provide the same positive aspects that are stemming from dialog. The AE does not solve POV and bias. AE does not allow the presence of different opinions and views in an article. AE seems more to kill the dialog than to elevate it. AE more or less, punishes the editors.
And, now, since the dialog is impossible and the Talk Page has become equally as ineffective as speaking to an empty wall, then I guess, the other solutions, are the only options, even if they could cost more than a dialog could have had. -- SILENTRESIDENT17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Expulsion of Cham Albanians, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
Hello! The last time you visited my talk page, you wrote "I do not intend to flood your talk page with useless messages, ..." Today I wake up to 21 messages from you. Has World World III boken out? I see nothing in these messages that has anything to do with me.
As far as I am concerned, the case was closed after the edits of Taivo and me and your statement that "The lede now is much better."
If you want to discuss other editors' statements and behaviour, that is up to you. But please not on my TP. The chances are that Taivo will never see it, since he can hardly be expected to monitor my humble TP. I would appreciate if you moved your comments to somewhere else. Regards! --T*U (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@TU-nor: In fact I did not flood your talk; just a single message I left in response to him since he was mentioning my name. Unless any edits to pre-existing message also count and are shown as separate notifications? Then this is very embarrassing. I am ashamed. I could have expected that. Well, in all case, I don't think I will be moving a dead discussion to new places because this was the final reply. I am done with him; after all I doubt any continuation of the discussion can make any difference to that editor if it didn't already. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT07:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes: every single edit, even changing one letter, gives a notification, so I got 21 notifications. That certainly looked as a flood. But never mind, I quickly saw what is was.
If you are not moving your comment somewhere else, you must forgive me for removing it, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with me. If it was meant as a last reply to Taivo, chances are the he would never read it anyway, since it was on a page he probably does not monitor. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@TU-nor: Of course feel absolutely free to remove it, since this is your Talk Page after all. As for the unexpected flood of 21 notifications, you have again my sincere apologies, my dear friend. Although, to be fair, from a different respective, the number 21 isn't that bad (well, in terms of symbolism). In fact, it is considered to be a sacred number in certain religions, languages or parts of the world. Here more info about it: [6]... So, you can somehow consider yourself to be lucky on top of that unfortunate incident. :-) Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
And if you know the "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy", you will know that 42 is the answer to "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", so we are half way there. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
About the deletion: the correct method would have been to strike it out, as here, but I accept that deletion as a necessary "oops, sorry" correction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I remember long ago (before I became an admin) a Wikipedia user who went round articles about fiction serieses deleting their episode guides, until he was blocked (not by me). My own saying with so-called trivia is "One man's trivia is often another man's important relevant matter". For example, I have little interest in football, but I do not go round systematically deleting football matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: Trivia are an important part of Wikipedic life. While not part of an article's main focus, they often contain valuable information related to it that couldn't be hosted on other articles due to lack of relevancy. For this very reason I have been active in contributing and adding trivia information in various movie-focused and videogame-focused Wikias around the Web (such as Zelda Wikia, Super Mario Wikia, Fringe Wikia, Game of Thrones Wikia, etc) where I happen to be a registered editor. I think they are very interesting and helpful. -- SILENTRESIDENT09:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: Yes I agree absolutely. A ban or block is urgently needed on him.
I must inform you that resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing, because he has already ignored any of the previous ARBMAC warnings (one on his Talk: [7] on 26 September 2016, and one another on the Talk archive) and kept up with his disruptive behaviors.
He was very clear to me that: 1) he knows of ARBMAC rules and acknowingly ignores and violates them, 2) he intends to stick to his disruptive behavior until he succeeds to have his biased and POV changes implemented to the article and 3) no one can stop or discourage him from doing that, even when under the threat of being reported to the Arbitration Enforcement for sanctions to be imposed on him. Here I copy his archived reply to me, for you to read) where he vowed to keep up with his disruptions even in the shadow of an AE report against him:
"I can assure you that I was already aware of ARBMAC. I will continue editing the Cham expulsion page; false narratives, temper tantrums, lies and half-truths will not discourage me from editing. As such, it is advised that you actually go through with the report. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC))"
And you know the rest of the story - despite previous Mediation resolutions and full awareness of ARBMAC rules, he not only has returned to the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians, but also has resumed his disruptive edits, with new 3RR breaches, more edit wars, acting against established consensus, violations of Mediator resolutions, even more violations of ARMBAC rules, restoration of the OR and SYNTH tags (which the Mediator Iazyges himself had removed), NPOV violations (see his biased edits where he added the dubious claims about "Greek Ethnic Cleansing against Albanians" to the Aftermath section of the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians...), and, overall, he kept up with an editorial misconduct that goes against Wikipedia's core principles and rules.
Only a permanent ban or block can end his constant disruptions on Expulsion of Cham Albanians and other Balkan-Related articles. He has violated every Wikipedia rule out there, and he has causing many problems to us the rest of the editors who struggled for years to preserve the neutrality in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and he has refused to listen to our pleas or be reasoned with. We the editors were already very patient with him thus far (while your Mediation reached 56 kilobytes, imagine how many more kilobytes we reached if we also add to that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, the No Original Research Noticeboard, and the Incidents Noticeboard, and the Cham Expulsion's Talk Page!), at the cost of our own sanity, and he has already be given many chances to remedy himself and see the errors of his ways to avoid a possible ban, but he won't. This editor's stubbornness should not be underestimated. He really mean it when he says that he does not intend to give up until he gets what he wants on the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. -- SILENTRESIDENT10:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: to understand how easy and soft we were towards DevilWearsBrioni, you have to imagine how many more kilobytes of chat we wasted with him: while your Mediation reached 56 kilobytes, imagine how many more kilobytes the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, the No Original Research Noticeboard, the Incidents Noticeboard, and the Cham Expulsion's Talk Page, are if combined! Wikipedia is very clear on this: better impose discretionary sanctions to editors refusing to follow the rules rather than waste too much time trying to convince the disruptive editors to be... not disruptive. -- SILENTRESIDENT11:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: if it is not a problem, I have informed now the Mediator Iazyges about the latest developments on the OR/SYNTH case (it was under his mediation, this summer). I want to thank you and everyone else for their patience on this long dispute. I know such cases can really test everyone's patience, but nevertheless I am very grateful and I hope for it to be over, more or less, either in the one or the other way. Because I don't think I can keep myself forever into this. You have my big thanks and gratitude for your help. -- SILENTRESIDENT09:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocks and Bans
Read the blocking policy and the banning policy. A block and a ban are two different things, although there is some overlap. A block is a lock that prevents an editor (either a named account, an IP address, or a range of IP addresses) from logging on. A temporary block is used for many reasons, such as to stop edit-warring or due to personal attacks. A block is a technical measure. A blocked editor cannot edit. An account that is blocked cannot log on. If the editor edits logged out, that is a form of block evasion. Another form of block evasion is the creation of a sockpuppet, an additional account for an improper purpose. A ban is a policy action, not a technical action. A ban is a ruling against all editing, or against certain editing. A site ban is enforced by a block. There are also limited bans, primarily topic bans and interaction bans. A topic ban is a ruling that an editor cannot edit in an area where they have been disruptive. What is being discussed in this case is a topic ban. It might be necessary to topic-ban this editor from all edits having to do with the Balkans. There has been in the past and still is a lot of battleground editing in certain areas, such as the Balkans, that have been real battlegrounds. (Two more such areas are Palestine and Israel, and India and Pakistan.) There is some confusion between an indefinite block and a site ban, but, although editors who are site-banned are indefinitely blocked, they are not the same. Editors are indefinitely blocked for being vandals, trolls, flamers, or otherwise not here to contribute positively. In this case, there is agreement that a site ban is not necessary, but that a topic ban is necessary. If an editor who has been topic-banned edits in the area that they have been banned from editing, they will be blocked for a period of time, with escalating blocks for repeat infractions. Do you now understand the difference, which is important but not always understood? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated, my dear. This cleared any confusion. So, yes, I believe a block is not what we need here. A topic ban is much more appropriate in dealing with this disruption. I support your proposal on ANI for a topic ban. -- SILENTRESIDENT21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: Dear Anthony, if you do not mind, I have requested the closure of the ANI discussion since it was moved to the AE. Is that ok for you? I made the request because having 2 separate discussions at same time about the same editor, can be confusing for him/her [9]. I hope this is not a problem for you? -- SILENTRESIDENT17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A comment of yours was removed from AE as it was part of a threaded discussion outside your comment section. Threaded discussions are not permitted on AE. Please feel free to place the comment in your section if you would like to do so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
You are slightly over 1000 words. Your statement is likely to be trimmed or ignored. At this point, my advice is to let the Arbitration Enforcement be closed with a warning. You aren't going to "win" by continuing to argue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Iazyges:, @Robert McClenon: I am disappointed with a certain editor's attacks on AE against the Mediators who volunteered to mediate in the notorious OR/SYNTH case. More precisely, the editor Resnjari, in his latest AE reply, has complained about the Mediator Iazyges "closing his mediation too early and thus not give him time to participate in it". However, if he REALLY wanted to participate in Mediations, then I wonder why he hasn't done it so far in Anthony Appleyard's Mediation? After all, Anthony is mediating in the same OR/SYNTH case as Iazyges, and he has kept it STILL open for more than 3 weeks already, but editor Resnjari is nowhere to be seen. Seeing him complaining after he has choosen to not participate, then what can I conclude? -- SILENTRESIDENT09:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:, you have said that there was "an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered" You will need to be more careful before making such expressions against other editors and ask yourself why we relied on your help in the first place. If there was indeed a campaign against DevilWearsBrioni, if there was really "an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered" like you said, then you should first ask yourself who has endured the disruption, who preferred to ask your help instead of filling the AE report on her own and why she accepted your efforts to bring the case to mediation in spite of her own doubt that there could be any tangible outcomes. I want to believe that you haven't forgotten what happened in the past 5 months and why we counted on your help, but such statements even if not ill-intended, they can send a very wrong message to the disruptive editors. It gives them the false impression that "I did nothing wrong, I am victim of others who want to dump me", and honestly, this risks making him even more defiant in our calls to respect the rules of the Wikipedia community, part of which you are a respectable member. I am afraid defiance generates less respect to rules and more disruption. If you really do care about improving his editorial conduct and give him a chance to be forgiven for his actions, then, please, being a little bit more careful with your statements in front of him, and do not underestimate his stubbornness. You have seen with your own eyes what we have been through with his stubbornness and filibustering. Even in the official mediation which you have called and observed, you have witnessed with your own eyes how things kept going out of control with him. A project such as Wikipedia needs to be protected from phenomena of that kind, and for this reason, we do not need feed it to make the 10-month disruption by that editor worsen than it already was and is. A little bit more caution in dealing with disruptive editors is not just recommended, but necessary, my friend. Otherwise nothing good can come out of all this. While your intentions are to end the disruption, such unfortunate statements from your part can only be counter-productive to the issue, as it gives the disruptors a leverage against the editors who have tried to defend Wikipedia's articles from disruption and rather sends the wrong message to the disruptors that they can escape the consequences for their actions and do as they please.
I have supported your proposal as well as Alexikoua's and Iazyge's proposals for action against him, but please, describing these as "an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered", undermines the very same collective efforts in which you have been the lead and only raises questions. Please, do not take this as criticism from my part, but as an advice because encouraging the disruptors and prolonging this 10-month-long dispute isn't beneficial for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I appreciate a lot your tireless efforts on resolving this. You have my gratitude and thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT17:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Iazyges:, @Anthony Appleyard: I appreciate a lot your sincere efforts to mediate to the infamous OR/SYNTH case, but I really want to move ahead and leave the month-long DevilWearsBrioni case behind, like everyone else here. I have done my best to participate in both mediations, but as you may have witnessed, there was no tangible outcome. When there is no outcome, usually the best is to drop the case even if you believe that it has to be resolved somehow. I am a human too and I can't be constantly engaged in never-ending disputes that lead nowhere and produce nothing the ample but grievance of your part and filibustering of their part. I am fully aware of the Anthony Appleyard's mediation being a privileged one and the results are binding, however, I feel that there is a difference between a normal mediation where participation is characterized by good faith and willingness for contribution, and a mediation where participation of disruptive editors is characterized by bad faith, POV, filibustering and stubbornness. For this very reason, I am not willing to participate in future mediations where user DevilWearsBrioni is invited and engaged, given his failure to be reasoned, filibustering and stubbornness. I am sorry but I can't keep myself into all this forever. It has been too much for me. While others may have endless amount of energy for filibustering, I do not have that much energy to bother with them all time and everyday.
But even so, I could like to inform you that, in the future, I will not refuse to participate to any new mediations that may be called, as long as they have been requested, not on the grounds of resolving content disputes caused by disruptive, filibustering and stubborn editors (as is the current's case, with DevilWearsBrioni), but on the grounds of resolving content disputes between non-disruptive editors, as per Wikipedia's rules and conditions for requesting a mediation. With simple words, any future mediations where there is good faith and commitment/contribution among the participating editors in improving an article's quality, will have my support. Again, I appreciate a lot your tireless efforts on this. Both of you have my gratitude and thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT17:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello, SilentResident. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
It's really sad that Resnjari doesn't give up and is still pretenting that you removed references in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Nevertheless I believe his action is still not actionable contrary to the "total war" pattern dispalyed by DevilWearsBrioni.Alexikoua (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: Dear Alexikoua, unfortunately, the user Resnjari is a POV-driven editor, as evidenced by his choice to support people based on their POVs and not based on their respect of Wikipedia's rules (see the "traitorous actions" argument) and this gives him low credibility when it comes to picking sides in POV wars because it is necessary that the rules such as WP:NPOV are respected and maintained at all times and cannot be superseded. Although Wikipedia acknowledges that the editors may have their personal POVs, (which may be positive or negative POV for the various sides), it clearly prohibits any editorial misconduct based on bias and POV, as is the case here, and urges everyone to adhere to the Five Pillars. This means every editor out there, even those editors who maintain a certain POV, have to stay objective, make compromises and seek consensus, not pick sides based on shared POVs nor turn blind eye to the violation of rules when the dispute involves a third person's editorial misconduct. Advocating and supporting disruptive editors just because they share your POV and demand that the opposite editors are treated with a logic of reciprocity even though they have violated no rules, not only goes against Wikipedia's rules and principles, but also lowers your credibility and standing in the community. -- SILENTRESIDENT18:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Iazyges, Athenean, Alexikoua, and Robert McClenon: I am forever in your debt for standing firmly against such punitive AE reports by disruptive editors. Like how I have repeated many times in the past: action (in the form of some sort of sanctions) should be taken against disruptive editors otherwise they will be encouraged to keep behaving even more stubbornly in the future. History repeats itself and we have witnessed this with our own eyes. -- SILENTRESIDENT20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: As you probably have noticed, the discussion on the AE is getting too long (lots of Kilobytes again) and I am certain that everyone here, including me, Iazyges, Robert, Athenean and Alexikoua, and now Resnjari, agree that it is a waste of time and we all really want this notorious never-ending OR/SYNTH case to be over, once and for all. It has been dragged around for too long and with no binding decisions given yet. With all respect, may I ask whether you are the administrator in charge of the AE report's outcome, and/or if you plan to make a final decision regarding that outcome? Thanks in advance for any response. -- SILENTRESIDENT20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: I could lie to you if I told you that I am not pessimistic about the AE getting archived without any outcome. For some reason, I feel there won't be any outcome and the punitive report will be archived and that the filler will escape without any consequences for violating the rules. While I couldn't mind it getting archived, I do worry because the lack of any outcome in the AE encouraging the usual suspects in keeping up with their attitude, knowing that Wikipedia does nothing about them and knowing that the rules are only applied ala-carte. if this is the case, I should really consider leaving Wikipedia forever. I don't think I am going to stick around when the rules mean nothing for some people. -- SILENTRESIDENT11:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro20:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
You were too quick with your notification, you placed it right before I add the sources. Just left you a message on your talk page too. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC
You have rushed to add the tag. Now that the sources have been added, the tag has been removed. Please let me know if there is still any problem. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT20:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Just happened to see this, thanks for the new article, and I was just about to remove that BLP-PROD when beat me to it. (Might be wiser to leave such a removal to somebody else in the future though). Just two observations: Please, please, learn to provide references giving more than just naked URLs. If our clashes over the other articles should have shown you something, it is that bare-url footnotes lead to all sorts of problems later on (not to mention that these Greek ones also look horrible on the page). No need to use the whole machinery of the {{cite web}} templates and stuff if you find those cumbersome; just any reasonably recognizable arrangement of author, title, publisher, date will be fine. The other thing is that you translated this page from el-wp. That's fine, but even when copying/translating from one Wikimedia project to the other, you need source attribution to comply with copyright rules. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects for details. Fut.Perf.☼20:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a question. I noticed the problem on Italian-Greece page and this is a problem I don't know how to solve. While I have indeed seen editors making such well-done citations that include text + author + date + page (that provide access to sourced info even when sourced page becomes unavailable) and thus survive over time. How they do that citation coding to work without problems? I have tried several times but it seems I suck in citation coding. Code always shows as broken and with the full url instead. Any tips on citation coding will be much appreciated. -- SILENTRESIDENT20:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
If can someone has a minute from his free time to explain me which exact command from [[10]] can work best when citing newspapers, will be very grateful. -- SILENTRESIDENT20:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I can fully understand you find the templates difficult to work with; fortunately there isn't really any need to use them. You can just provide the necessary info in normal wikitext, the way you'd see them cited in any academic article too, and put the url as a normal external link "hidden" under the title. I'll do one of the entries in your new article for you as a model to show what I mean. Fut.Perf.☼20:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
See here [11]. For an article in a book, as you often need for history articles and the like, you'd do something like: "Writer, John (2006): What I always wanted to write an article about. In: Max Editman (ed.), The Most Important Book on Earth, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 100–140." Fut.Perf.☼21:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise also, another problem I had but couldn't figure out, is the conversion of ou from Greek to u or ou in English. Could you see on the problem I have with convention of Greek names to English? I see how the Turkish articles (i.e. Ahmet Davutoglu are using u instead of ou, but not exactly sure about Greek ones. So the article's name is correct as Aristos Kasmiroglu or should have been Aristos Kasmiroglou?. -- SILENTRESIDENT20:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that, we're typically not very consistent about that, but in principle the idea is that we should follow the guideline at WP:GREEK. It seems to have "ou" for "ου". Actual Turkish names in -oğlu will of course be rendered according to Turkish Latin orthography, but for Greek names with this borrowed suffix there's no reason not to stick with our standard convention for Greek Romanization. Fut.Perf.☼21:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I see. OK I think the article better be moved from Aristos Kasmiroglu -> Aristos Kasmiroglou, just to stay safe. If you, or someoene else with admin privileges can do this, will be much appreciated. Because it is a newly created article, initiating a Move Request is kinda pointless within the very same day it was created. Or should I initiate one in the article's talk page? -- SILENTRESIDENT21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, for such a simple technical renaming, especially on your own article, you can easily just go ahead and move it yourself, no need for either admin tools or a formal request first. Fut.Perf.☼21:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Took me a while to find the "Move Page" button on Wikipedia's User Interface, was hidden beneath an arrow. Now the page is moved to Aristos Kasmiroglou and links from other pages to it have been updated accordingly. -- SILENTRESIDENT00:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I agree that creating an incomplete article in mainspace is essentially taking a gamble on having it tagged. Create the article in user space and move it to mainspace when you have all of the references in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Now that finally it is over, I will delve to Wikipedia's guidelines which I may have missed previously to familiarize myself with, because somehow I got the impression that ignorance for certain rules have contributed (in part) to the failure to tackle more effectively with this kind of disruption caused by certain editors on ARBMAC protected articles, and have allowed the OR/SYNTH case to escalate and get out of control in the first place. If any new questions arise in the future, may I seek for your advise? Your advises proven to be very useful. Βonsoir. -- SILENTRESIDENT17:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The sandbox is a user page. A user page is any page in the private space of a user, which is preceded by identifying the user. I will try to look to see where user space is properly described. However, an example is User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, where I specify the rules under which I accept a dispute for informal mediation. That is a case of my using user space on a permanent basis, but one can also use user space for draft articles and then move them into article space. One can use the sandbox for that purpose, but it is not the only user page that can be used for draft articles. If you want more advice, you may ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I see. In my case, I think I will just limit myself to the use of Sandbox because I am not exactly sure how to create User sub pages that are linked to the user main page. -- SILENTRESIDENT18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I will not fight to keep the mosque in the gallery, actually I am not very fond of such galleries. But since the gallery is there, I can see three reasons to keep the mosque:
Even if the interior is closed to the public (and has been for ages), it is actually the mosque's exterior and its history that makes it special. I have myself been guided there on a "cultural trip" in Northern Greece many years ago, and I have later helped guiding on a similar trip. Even with the new protective roof, it will still be a place of great interest for tourists with interest in history and architecture.
It was the only picture from Thrace in the gallery.
It was the only Ottoman monument in the gallery.
The two last objections could, of course, be remedied by other pictures. There is, by the way, a much better picture of the mosque in Commons. As you will se, I have exchanged it in the "Islam in Greece" article. --T*U (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Like I said: it makes no sense to include in the Tourism in Greece a closed and off-limits area for tourists. That you can go and visit the public areas around it, does not mean the building itself, is a tourist destination. The building's interior is closed to the tourists who may be interested in the monument and the authorities do not permit entry. Nor the immediate area around it offers organized reception for tourists either. As you may have noticed, the list in the Tourism article tries to include only landmarks that are open and organized for tourism. In the list, all the buildings you will find, are places prepared and organized for tourists, offering them access to both interiors and exteriors. Greece has many buildings of historical significance which nowadays remain off limits to the tourists. The gallery has none of them for obvious reasons, no matter how significant these buildings were, historically or contemporary.
If you deem a building or area as being noteworthy or significant, despite accepting no tourists in it, then feel free to add it to articles more relevant to its purpose. -- SILENTRESIDENT21:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
One thing
Can you please, please, please, get rid of that habit of tinkering with your own postings on talkpages dozens of times every time you post something? It's bad manners. Such edits are polluting the edit history, they make it difficult to follow the progression of a discussion or to link to it, and they can be extremely annoying if somebody is trying to respond to you quickly but keeps getting into edit-conflicts with your follow-up edits (happened to me half a dozen times the other day). Just try some self-discipline: think before you press save, not after.
Also, in your own interest, you should seriously consider cutting down on the sheer volume of what you post in the future. Volume is not making your arguments more persuasive. On that Macedonia page, it's gone way beyond the "tl;dr" stage now. If that RfC ever had the chance of arriving at some conclusion, that chance is now gone for good. No outside observer is going to cut through all that verbiage in order to add some much-needed, fresh outside opinion there any longer. Fut.Perf.☼20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
As if you really cared about a uninvolved party's opinion on this. From the moment you have opposed the RfC, what can I say? I expected more from you but you have disappointed me, Future Perfect. I am sad. But I guess, this is Wikipedic life, right?
EDIT: And sorry for my writing focus disorter. I am trying to limit it but a health issue is not as easily controllable as you may believe.
On the left side of your screen, where there are various links such as "Main Page", "Random Article", "Help", etc. Perhaps the "Email this User" under the Tools section is what you seek. Hope that helps. -- SILENTRESIDENT22:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!
Hi SilentResident, please allow me to get in touch because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature here? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am following closely the very inspiring developments for the promotion of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) to GA status at for the first time after that many years. May I ask - there appear to be 2 identical copies of the discussion, one at the parent page:
[12]
and the other at its child page:
[13]
Which one is where we cab make comments? -- SILENTRESIDENT16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd recommend on the GA page, i also would like to apologize for my inactivity, i have been away until recently, I should be able to put full effort into it in a few hours. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Tolea93, two countries in the map have now been updated. You may have to do a hard refresh or clear your web browser's cache to see the changes on the image file. Enjoy.
About Romania, the requested changes didn't pass, as the data you provided me are too old. Can you find and provide me more recent sources about that country? -- SILENTRESIDENT12:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor / The Special Barnstar
This was comedy and made my entire day! , I don't think anyone could have ever come up with such an amazing reply like that so thank you! ,
Also I wanted to thank you for creating that collage on the Thessaloniki article - I'll be honest you've done a better job than I expected
and it looks perfect so thank you :),
And lastly thank you for all of your contributions here!,
Happy editing (and keep comments like this up ),
Cheers, –Davey2010Talk20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I would have passed over that reply of yours at Talk:Thessaloniki, knowing that it's unrealistic to expect better of you, but as you have now opted to proudly boast it on your user page, I'll tell you this: that was nothing to be proud of and nothing to laugh about; that was a cringeworthy, disgraceful display of moronic, smug, self-complacent arrogance and intellectual laziness. Painful and offensive. Fut.Perf.☼13:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise What did you expect me to say, my dear? I am sorry if you perceived a humorous response to nitpicking as an offense, but it is not. If I was complaining about my small PC monitor, I could rather expect the same response from the others. -- SILENTRESIDENT13:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Will you finally stop calling others "my dear"? I am not your dear, and have no desire to be. Cut it out, and wipe that moronic grin off your face. I won't answer to the rest of your questions, as you are evidently not getting it, as usual. Fut.Perf.☼14:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Replacing the disputed nationality of Ancient Macedonia(as agreed by the Wikipedia Community) with what fits and ultra-nationalist may lead you to a topic ban. Your behaviour is beyond any norms of social interactions and tendentious containing ultra-nationalist stances and bias. Magic words and hypocritical OVERpoliteness is not going to hide them and your offenses towards editors and disruption of articles. Neither your reading disorders are reason to exempt you from edit warring and pushing extreme views.--Judist (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
** Formal ARBMAC warnings can only be imposed by uninvolved administrators on individual editors who have repeatedly violated policy to the point that any further violation will result in a block. User:Judist, (who already has a bad record of two (2) blocks in the past - one in November 2015 and another one in 18 June 2016) was involved on April 15 2017 in disruptions in a number of ARBMAC articles, which resulted in him receiving a serious warning by Wikipedia Administrator User:EdJohnston: [14]. Any retaliatory warnings by User:Judist on editors who have defended Wikipedia from such forms of disruption, is considered WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM and may result in indefinite blocks and bans. ** --SILENTRESIDENT16:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thessaloniki GA process
Thanks for wanting to involve me in the GA process of this article, but I am afraid I have to pass. I do not even know anything about the GA criteria, and I am not sure I have even read 10 percent of the Thessaloniki article. My Wiki editing is mostly low key, sporadic and casual (even if I tend to end up in rather tense discussions now and then). So I do not think I am the one to give advice. I do, however , wish you good luck. --T*U (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, no problem, anyways, you are always welcome to share your thoughts with us in the talk if something problematic in that article catches your eye. Have a good day. --SILENTRESIDENT19:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, will you forgive me? You have every right to disagree with me, and it is very natural that we can not agree on everything. But I had no right to judge you that quickly and accuse you for nationalist bias. It is understandable that heated discussions on the talks of politically sensitive articles can, before we realize it, become quite polemic, but this assumption was very very wrong of my part. I am sorry for this. Will you forgive me? --SILENTRESIDENT18:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, by the way, there is something I haven't told you. Back then, I was considering submitting a form on the Proposals for Barnstars page, to suggest the creation of the Linguist's Barnstar, which you evidently deserve given your interest on language topics on Wikipedia, (the Rosetta Stone Barnstar does not cover this kind of language article contributions) but after reading your texts on Slavs in Greek Macedonia, the Socratic was choosen instead lol. But still the Linguist's Barnstar's creation should still be considered someday. --SILENTRESIDENT19:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry about past heated debates. The issues of the Balkans are so divisive that it's incredibly difficult for editors to remain calm and neutral. Over time, we get familiar with the regulars and can even strike up respectful friendships. (Dr.K and I are an example.) And I am certainly not innocent when it comes to heated Talk Page comments. It will certainly make it much easier to be polite to one another in the future (while still disagreeing on content). I do like the idea of a Linguist Barnstar. Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Article moves to existing target
If you want to move the article to the destination which already exists and has non-trivial editing history, you need to request the deletion of the destination. Just place {{db-move}} there, such requests are usually handled within hours. Cut-and-paste moves do not preserve the editing history and should be avoided. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ymblanter, I see. So in our case here, you added that tag on the destination article and then it was deleted? Although there is something more - in the talk page of the moved article, there were some decissions posted about a Merge. However the Merge decission was about the previous article, not the destination article. Souldn't the Talk be only partially moved, with any decissions regarding the article's past (such as decissions for merges), staying on the old talk page? --SILENTRESIDENT09:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I am an administrator, and I can move pages even if the destination exists (though if the page history is non-trivial, I perform history merges). The talk in this case was complicated, and I had to sort it out, but in most cases it would be moved automatically. If you see that smth is irregular with the talk pages, just ask any administrator for help.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok, and again thank you very much for your time to tackle the problem. I appreciate your time to help on this. Have a good day. --SILENTRESIDENT09:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It's totally weird to adopt a totalitarian regmime's official opinion in every single infobox. I remember a similar case in the past in Tenedos and Imbros, where the official de jure autonomous status of the islands were removed from the infobox because they didn't fit a certain pov.Alexikoua (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Alexikoua, thing is, the WP:POV present by the Turkish government on the Imia Sovereignty Dispute is not the majority view. The vast majority of the sources online, as well as the international community through the various governments or intergovernmental institutions, assert the view that the Islands are Greek. The Turkish view is only a minority view not supported by anyone besides Turkey itself. Wikipedia's rules are very clear on what can be done in this case. There is a dispute, and Wikipedia should acknowledge that it is a dispute, but this doesnt mean we have to change every island infobox from "Greek" to "disputed" just because Turkey claims so. Turkey in fact claims not only Imia, but 18 to 200 more Greek islands. Does this mean we have to flag every one of them as disputed on Wikipedia? No.
However I am troubled with how certain editors here are reacting like that when I am suggesting to create a new article and move the dispute to the new article. What I am asking here is nothing new. The same was done on Falklands sovereignty dispute article - which has no infobox and which allowed the Falklands Islands infobox to display the owner (UK) of the islands, not the claimant, (Argentina). I am not saying Argentina and Turkey are same, because Argentina has international recognition for its claims on Falklands while Turkey has no whatever international recognition for its claims on Imia. Plus, Falklands sovereignty has not been settled by any international treaties yet, while Imia have. To put it straight, even if we ignore what the majority view on Imia is, and talk about the legal view, Greece has more reasons than the United Kingdom to display the Imia as Greek (de-jure as per international treaties) than the United Kingdom has to Falklands. But still...
Normally, what I am asking here should have been done from the start, as NPOV is not a negotiatable policy to begin with, but due to the tense history of the Imia article, I am refraining from doing it without some backing. To ask for a new article that will have no infoboxes, is to ask for a solution to the current problem of POV-pushing focus on the Dispute, and POV-pushing infobox. --SILENTRESIDENT13:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
If I may add my two cents, these situations are also not conducive to a one-size-fits-all solution as every situation is unique. Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, but the Russian army occupies it and the Russian government has "annexed" it. North Ossetia is internationally recognized as part of Georgia, but the Russian army sits there and recognizes an "independent" government there. Etc. These sovereignty disputes are many and varied and each should be weighed not on a uniform standard, but individually. --Taivo (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Taivo, not every dispute is same to each other, indeed. I am looking on other disputes, not to draw similarities, but to find ideas of resolving the POV issues on Imia. The Aegean dispute is very unique on its own, but not really very different from certain other island disputes in the world enough so that no ideas can be drawn from them. In this context, besides suggesting for Imia the same rationale that is used for the other Greek islands which Turkey too disputes: the Greek island of Agathonisi (which Turkey declared to be a Turkish territory but this POV is not reflected on Agathonisi's infobox), the Greek island of Pasas, Oinousses (which Turkey declared to be a Disputed territory but again the Turkish POV is not reflected on infobox) etc, I pointed out to similar, but not same, examples from other disputes, such as Falklands where Argentina declared the islands to be Argentine territory, yet Wikipedia remained neutral and Argentine POV is not reflected on the island's infobox.
Due to the nature of the 1996 events and the status of the islets, the Infobox of Imia currently does not reflect the sovereignty dispute in a neutral way, hence why I am strongly suggesting that the dispute is moved to an infobox-less article, where maps are used instead of infoboxes. A map of Imia similar to the one made by Future Perfect, with lines or without, is an excellent idea to replace the infobox in the new article. --SILENTRESIDENT16:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't disagreeing with you because other than knowing Turkey and Greece hate each other, I know nothing about this island dispute, but am not surprised that it exists. I was just cautioning against using a hard and fast rule to resolve the infobox conundrum. Indeed, in the few cases where I've waded in, every solution has been different and is usually the result of hard-fought compromise (Crimea being the most recent example in my case). --Taivo (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ahahaha, that is cute, dear Dr.K.. You are always welcome to park your truck here anytime! I am glad I helped in any way I can. Please do not hesitate to ask for help, or, in our case, for some fuel for your truck! Silent's Gas Station offers the lowest prices in entire Wikipedia, and the finest quality of fuel! I kid you not! --SILENTRESIDENT20:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks so much. :) I appreciate the low gas prices. On the other hand, you are free to use my truck to haul refs at will. Take care SR. :) Dr.K.20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha! Now, there is no way I am going to lose my truck. Plus, it was meant as a barnstar anyway. Great idea. :) Dr.K.21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Greek Dimos infobox
Hello! I stumbled across the article Pasas, Oinousses and was a bit confused about the presentation. It presents the area of the island, but also of the municipality, and then states that the population of the municipality is 0! The page history shows that you have used the "Infobox Greek Dimos" template, but that template is not really suitable here. It is made for use in articles about Greek municipalities and municipal units and can with careful adaptation be used for smaller units (for example by using the parameter set "Community" instead of "Area" and "Population". But for a small island, especially an island without any population, it does not really fit very well. There is no "Community" on Pasas. (Also the time zone seems a little out of context on an uninhabited island!) Don't you think it would be better to use the "Infobox islands", which is made for just islands!? --T*U (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, the problem is that the island is inhabited, not by a local population but by a permanent personell which is garrisoned. Hence the number zero. Do you think the term Community, or the Island infobox even though the island is inhabited, could better in such a case? I don't know other examples in Wikipedia which could help me on understanding on how to handle this. It is first time I stumple upon an island that has permanent personell but no locals. --SILENTRESIDENT07:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for spotting the Municipality = 0 mistake. I changed it to Community as suggested, which is more accurate, but still this makes it show as a pop of zero.
Edit 2: TU-nor, now I remember why I did replace the Island infobox to Demos back then. The locator parameters in the Island infobox were not working properly and were causing errors and the reason for switching to Demos. But now that I reverted it back to Island Infobox, it still caused these old errors to me. I checked now the Template:Infobox_islands and I found it wasn't the Island infobox's fault, just wrong parameters in it. Now this has been fixed. Enjoy! --SILENTRESIDENT09:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you move today's comment at Talk:Western Europe to the section "Selective picking of countries in WE list - Greece out, but Malta, Germany and Finland in?" so as to keep the two threads separate. --T*U (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we merge the threads. They are about the same problem: the criteria for inclusion or non-inclusion of countries into the pop list plus for the other points you mentioned. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤07:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really. The thread you started is about which countries (and languagea) to include/exclude. The thread I started is about abolishing the whole thing. That is not quite the same thing. --T*U (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
They are the two sides of the same problem - in my thread, I am pointing out to what problems this article has with certain countries being in and out of the list based on personal perceptions of editors. And in your thread, you are pointing out to what are the most ideal solutions for avoiding such problems: to abolish the article sections or base them on geographical and not on personal perceptions. I am afraid it is quite the same problem we are having here, and a drastic solution is needed. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤07:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You really seem to have a knack at interpreting my comments differently from how they are meant. I have re-read my posting, and I cannot find that I have said that the sections should be "based on geographical criteria". All I have said that inclusion criteria should be specified, or else the sections should be removed. And as far as I can see, there are no geographical criteria specified anywhere in the article, either. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, and it seems you really seem to have a knack at wanting the others interpreting differently your comments. You said "One solution is to specify inclusion criteria for each and all of those four articles" which, pointless to remind you, are geographical articles. If you do not meant geographical criteria for these geographical articles, then what else could work best? Am I missing something or are you just testing my patience? Just letting you know: if you imply that each of these articles could mean different criteria, i.e. non-geographical, then I don't think I will support your suggestions as this isn't resolving the problem at its root. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤13:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for late answer; I am a bit busy in real life for the moment. What I meant (and said) is criteria, nothing less, nothing more. I would be willing to discuss whatever kind of criteria that might be suggested: pure geographical, cultural, historical, geopolitical, any combination of those, possibly other. I have not concluded on what kind of criteria I would prefer for any of the sections, and I am not even certain that the same criteria need to be used for the four sections. The only thing I am certain about so far, is that each of those four sections needs explicit criteria for what is meant by "Western Europe" before we can give the section any meaningful content. For example, I find it hard to understand why Finland should be included in the "Population" section, and not Greece. On the other hand, there might be reasons to include Slovenia and exclude Greece. It all depends on the criteria, and as long as there are not any criteria given, we are stuck with POVs. Please also note that the current article has no defined geographical criteria. Even if we should agree to use purely geographical criteria, we would need to agree on where the "border line" is. Include Germany or not? Include Denmark and Norway, but not Sweden and Finland? Include Spain and Portugal? You included Greece in the "Population" section, presumably according to some criteria. You removed German from the "Language" table, but kept Italian, presumably according to some criteria. I do not agree, and I do not disagree. As long as there are no criteria given, those four sections are useless POV, and the discussion about which countries/languages to include is valueless. If you or anyone else are willing to and able to suggest inclusion criteria for those sections, I will give my opinion in that discussion. I have, however, not much hope for such a discussion to end up in anything useful, in which case I will suggest that those sections are removed. Finally: Please accept this posting as a confirmation that I have not said or meant that the sections should be "based on geographical criteria" (like you have stated in the talk page). --T*U (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, no need for confirmation that you haven't said this or that. But when discussing about reasonable *criteria* for a geographical article like Western Europe, we can not assume or expect the criteria to be non-geographical, since the article itself is a geographical one. No matter what, but WE, SE, NE, CE and EE are geographical definitions despite their varying geopolitical and cultural meanings through the ages, and there can be only be one kind of criteria for which countries shall be listed in them: geographical. (And to cast aside any possible concerns about non-geographical definitions of WE, it is pointless to remind that the history section already tackles with all possible non-geographical meanings for that term. Your thorough explanation here, however, made me realize that even geographical criteria may be very difficult to ever be decided - or *agreed*. In that case, I will come to the talk and change my position from applying geographical criteria to abolishing the four sections.--❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You say that Western Europe is a geographical article. I disagree. In my opinion, it is (and should be) an article about the term "Western Europe". As far as I can see, the article does not even try to make a purely geographical definition of the term. As the lead says, the term has different geographic, geopolitical and cultural definitions, which are discussed in the article. This is also the reason why people have added for example Finland and Greece to the Population table, countries that could not by any stretch of imagination be seen as Western European in a purely geographical sense. --T*U (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Like it or not, Western, Northern, Southern, Central, are all geographical definitions foremost. Different types of these definitions, and different perceptions, also do exist and the article makes that clear. But there is no doubt that through the ages, the definition that stands out, was and still is the geographical one. No matter how we see it. We can spend tons of hours arguing about that, but nothing can change the fact that the terms are geographical in principle, even if they get geopolitical and other definitions at various time periods. It is true that the other definitions got more prominence during certain historical periods, but it could be false to argue about the term's geographical definition (or whether its meaning became less significant or lost). --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤06:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"But there is no doubt that through the ages, the definition that stands out, was and still is the geographical one." If that is correct, it should absolutely be mentioned in the article. That would, of course, have to be sourced to a reliable source. Problem is, I am not sure it can be sourced. I am not even sure it is true. --T*U (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
True about sourcing geographical definitions. It is difficult to find sources for supporting geographic definitions directly, and thats not only the case about Europe, but also about countries, peninsulas, etc. Even noticed geographical places in Wikipedia that do not have exact definite borders, are unsourced or have conflicting sources but are still widely referred by certain geographical divisions. Even though I think this is a natural problem, I tried myself looking on internet specifically about WE and I couldnt find any good sources supporting it directly. However, in the case where it is verified, but sources are difficult to cite, I wonder if it can rather be considered too obvious and fall under WP:BLUESKY? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤07:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you really don't understand? OK, you see the article Northern Greece? There are no sources definition of what constitutes geographical Northern Greece, yet the article mentions of all the possible northern areas of the country. I assumed this to be a WP:BLUESKY case. While there are sources on internet, none of them is strong about it, yet you don't need sources to cite that these regions really are the northernmost in the country. It is just too obvious. What I am saying, is that perhaps the same can be done more or less for WE. In the talk, you have asked rhetorically if Spain has to be included in the climate section of WE, while Germany on the economy section but don't you think you know the answers for both countries already? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, you mentioned about me "keeping" the Italian language in the WE Languages section. I shall note that I didn't keep it, just I didn't finish the checking of all WE languages on the Ethnologue, hence why the cleanup of that list in the first place wasn't complete. So far I checked Ethnologue only for Catalan, Bacque, Greek, English, German and Dutch languages, if they exceed the 5.000.000 benchmark. The fact that I didn't finish the cleanup of the list (and the removal of Italian from it), doesn't mean I am endorsing the list, or that I am endorsing the Italian language's inclusion in that list. I am sorry if I wasn't that quick in finishing my edits on the article, but I prefer to be safe than sorry about the removal of content. Still, no matter what effords are made to clean the article, without definitive WE geographical criteria, I somehow have the impression that even my efforts are just a hole in the ocean and nothing more. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤05:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can I just ask you what geographical "borders" of Western Europe you used as (geographical) criteria when you checked Ethnologue? --T*U (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Τried το keep only all the westernmost countries that are present in both of the definitions (CIA & Western European and Others Group). Still not quite happy with this workaround as I prefer the community to discuss for the actual geographical criteria, because only this way we can defend the article from editorial bias like this one witnessed the last couple days where Germany is present but Greece isn't. But I prefer it over other editor's selective removal of countries from the list.
Even so, I am still very unhappy with this temporary solution because I have a feeling that due to a lack of clear WE definition, not much can be done to keep POV edits away from these lists. We should remove these lists altogether, at least until after (and if) any discussion and consensus on geographic definitions is made.--❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤06:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi SR. Thanks for reinstating my edit. By the way, the reason for the revert of my edit was pure OR. In fact, I had provided the three crossroads references in 2013: Here is my first edit supplying two sources and here is my subsequent edit supplying one more source; so yes, that was a revert of my edit despite having hauled three top-notch RS to support the "crossroads" descriptor. And do you know what's funny? There will be some guys coming in telling me that I do cite overkill. Here, with three references supporting "crossroads" and I get reverted. There can never be a safe number of references with POV like that. Is that funny or what? Dr.K.02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: I didn't knew you have provided sources for that. Can you please restore them? Or can I do that? Removal of sources by the editors for not suiting their POVs, goes blatantly against Wikipedia's policies and their edits will simply be reverted. Period. Feel free to restore the sources back. I will be watching the page more closely to make sure such a thing doesn't happen again. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤06:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I remember that back in 2011/2012 there were quite a lot of discussions on different talk pages about the translation of the Greek "περιφέρεια". The result at that time was not to use the English word "periphery" as a translation, since that word has a rather different meaning in English, but instead use the word "region". I have managed to find a couple of the discussions here and here. There were more, but the conclusions were the same. By the same token, "περιφερειακή ενότητα" was translated with "regional unit". It will need a discussion to change the consensus, and some of your edits today may have to be reverted in order to start the discussion from the current consensus version. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SilentResident. 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.
Happy new year, SR. Despite our current differences I hope you have a great time, and a joy-filled and prosperous year ahead. I'd also like you to email me. Sometimes it is easier to come to an agreement that way I think, and I want to defuse this issue and prevent it from getting too nasty.--Calthinus (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: The undoing of the blocked editor's contested changes [15] have been reverted upon your request:[16]. Please, do you have a moment of your time to suggest what can be done to have the disputed and unsourced content removed if you are objecting to these edits being reverted? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤01:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: I can't do anyhting else but hope that the blocked editor initiates a proper discussion on the proper Talk Page the next time instead of edit warring. That could be highly appreciated. But please bear in mind that in the event they resume their disruption, I won't take any action. Sorry but this unexpected and unfortunate course of events has left me unsure about what to expect ahead. I am leaving this for the others to handle it. Have a good day. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤01:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! (Bes-ART (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC))
Hi SilentResident. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (work | talk)03:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't intend joining the debate at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) but wanted to offer some form of appreciation of your cogent and insightful remarks on the relationships between geography, dialect and the development of language in general. Quite a revelation to me, and no less valuable for being obvious -- once seen! Haploidavey (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Haploidavey: You mean that? [17]. Of course, I am just point out to the facts. It is easy to overlook the role of geography in the development of languages, and this exactly is the case here too. Just we tend to look at the tree and miss the forest sometimes, hence why this reply. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Cleopatra has a fresh new article
Per my rewrite of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which you have enjoyed in the past, I'd like to invite you to gaze upon my latest work: Cleopatra.
I'm a big dumb man, and like all big dumb men sometimes I overlook the presence and importance of women in my life, and especially in historical studies. Since you are both a woman Wikipedian and a Greek, I would be remiss in failing to alert you to the fact that Cleopatra now has a suitable article, one that's hopefully worthy of her name. Before today, her article was just a jumbled mess with a neat little art section that I had previously made. Now she is a towering giant with over 200 citations from dozens of scholarly sources, complete with a handsome array of pictures (including even ancient Roman paintings depicting the Ptolemaic queen, descendant of Alexander's companions Ptolemy I and Seleucus I). Feel free to add input, as I plan on submitting it as a GA nominee today. Cheers! Pericles of AthensTalk21:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: My friend, it is a honor for the Wikipedia project to have "a big dumb man" like you, around. I wish I too was a "a big dumb woman" but I guess I still am having a lack of insight of what makes an article stand out as a quality one. But I will be more than glad to check the article of Cleopatra when time permits me tomorrow or in two days at most, when I wont be running with my business and daily affairs. I can't wait! Expect a response from me soon.-- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤22:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: It seems you have oudone yourself, as, besides the well-written text, there was nothing for me to fix in the two new sub-articles. No typo errors, no citation issues, just nothing. Well done! Edit: but there was a sentence yesterday which, upon reading it, it generated questions which the article didn't seem to answer for me. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤14:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, I hope the summer is going great SR! Also, I miss having brands of ouzo besides Metaxa which is all that sells here :( Calthinus (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are engaged in WP:EDITWAR and you have violated WP:3RR repeatedly, with 6 reverts. I have already reported you on the Administrator's Noticeboard and reverted your edits. You should stop this behavior immediatelly. Your quote of Adolf Hitler has also been reverted on my assumption that it is part of your persistent disruption. However carefully re-checking the quote, it seems it can be allowed to the article - but the rest of your edits can not, so please do not reinstate them. Read WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR and if you promise that you will refrain from similar attitudes in the future, I will withdraw my report against you on the Administrator's Noticeboard. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)18:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Good. The report against you on the Administrator's noticeboard, has been withdrawn. Next time be more careful and learn to use the Talk Page for discussion on disputed content/changes and seek WP:CONSENSUS before implementing them on the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)23:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This: [18] To assert that every changes are subject to editorial consensus, goes against NPOV which has to have articles maintain NPOV regardless of editorial consensus.
Please read carefully what the Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy states: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
Nope. You are not providing diffs where I say that WP:NPOV rules can be overriden by WP:CONSENSUS. The content you want to add is on the article, the community consensus needs to determine whether it should be given enough weight to be added to the lede, and if so should be done, how should the new content be formulated. Anyways, we should focus on giving Souliotes a proper and stable solution, everything else is not of much importance. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello
i dont make "disruptive" edits Another author systematically deletes the albanian translation. He lets after the title only the GREEK tranlation in order to rpesent "Zalogo dance" as a purely greek event. Please check the changes os "Dr.K" I Restaure the bilingual situation and translation
thank you
Prof. Dr. Dimitri Dimoulis
Mr. Dimoulis, I am afraid the content you have been trying to add to the article, is already present. in fact, in the very same paragraph, just some sentences below. I have already replied to you about this in the article's talk page. Your edits have been reverted due to not being an improvement for the article. Please consider talk page discussion instead of further edit warring with other editors. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)23:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Recognition of the Macedonian Language by the Hellenic Republic
Hello, your change at the page of Macedonian Language seems to suggest that you are refering to Prespes Accord. Hwever until that accord is reached and The Republic of Macedonia changes its name to Republic of Northern Macedonia there will be no official recognition of the South-Slavic Language by Greece.If on the other hand you mean the Greek People ,the general consensus is that the language that is spoken at the Republic is a dialect of Bulgarian.Please restore the page to the previous version .
@AlbusTheWhite:, you are mistaken, I am afraid. Greece recognized the language, not in 2018 with the Prespa Agreement, but much earlier, and precisely in the 1977 UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names. You can read it for yourself: [20]. The Prespa Agreement merely reaffirms the recognition. nothing more, nothing less. Plus, if you check the sources, you can notice how the Language is called by that name for more than 4 decades (1977-today), and Greece never has sent any formal letters of complaint to the UN about the Language's recognition that could suggest that the recognition was done without Greek consent. I have 2 sources from 2 different Greek Ministers (Greek Foreign Minister and Greek Minister of Shipping) confirming that the language was indeed recognized in 1977. I am sorry but what the media or anyone else does claim about the Macedonian language's recognition, falls short in front of the official statements by the Greek authorities themselves. Wikipedia reflects upon facts, not upon personal opinions on whether the langage was indeed recognized or not. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)11:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The fact that 2 Greek Ministers confirmed the language's recognition is something that cannot be denied, no matter what sources you may cite. Furthermore, the classified greek documents that were submitted to the Hellenic Parliament confirming the use of the term Macedonian for the South Slavic language have been added to the article. This is just to cast any doubts aside. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)12:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@SilentResident:, could you at least state the sources you claim at this discussion because i cannot find what you are talking about.Thank yoy beforehand.Also classified secret goverment documents sounds a little fishy to me 79.107.183.45 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Well,this article is no reliable source that is for sure.You see this is an encyclopedia you cannot write information about official recognition of a Language without an official ammoumcement on this issue.I am afraid i will restore the article to its previous edition.Also the article and your "supposed" information you mention does not match 79.107.183.45 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry but The Press Project is a reliable site, as it is the American news agencies CNN and even Greek news websites such as New Post which too posted the documents (see: [21][22]). The sources are WP:RS and confirmed, since they are official documents of the state, like it or not. If you really do think any of them falls short of WP:RS, then I recommend you bring the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. However, I suggest that you prepare yourself well for the RS Noticeboard, because you will have very difficult time explaining to the admins why they are not RS. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)20:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, SilentResident. 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.
I really cannot help you on that. There weren't any strong activism movements in Greece like in, for example, the USA. Most improvement has come gradually over time Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, no problem, I was afraid this will be harder than I expected... I will ask more friends who happened to know about LGBT activists such as Evangelia Vlami and Gregory Valianatos on the matter, and see if they can provide me any information. Thanks anyways. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)19:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albania–Greece relations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring on Albanians. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Wuerzele. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Frontex, but you didn't provide a reliable source. please include a citation ! 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
for your edit but where's the source ?--Wuerzele (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you may be blocked from editing. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
, I don't think anyone could have ever come up with such an amazing reply like that so thank you! 
I kid you not! .jpg)
--SILENTRESIDENT 20:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 23:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)