User talk:SilentResident/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Failed report

No need to waste your time in this. The report was a straight failure from beginning.Alexikoua (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: I have become increasingly wary of this filibuster and his attitude. At least for now I reported to admin Ed Johnston about the outcome of the discussion on the Talk page of Albania-Greece relations so that the admin can be updated with the outcome of the discussion. [1] I have detailed also to the filibusters the options they have in challenging the RS or NPOV nature of the paragraph, so it is up to their discretion to do whatever they want. But from my side, I have done all I could to have all viewpoints covered and well-sourced. However I am afraid we are far from done with other parts of the article which need our attention. Don't you agree? However I am exhausted with this endless discussion with these editors, so pardon me if I am taking a break from it for a while. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Also be aware that awarding barnstars to nationalist editors (or militaristic type medals as they see it) can only provoke further disruptive activity.Alexikoua (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I admit you are right. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Demonym

Hi, how are u?, I see here that you understand the situation about the demonyms of the countries, so, I want to ask you did you want to join in the descussion here and to help me to prove my claims. Namely, I'm claiming the the demonym refers to all the residents of one country and because of that the link for the demonym of the countries who have a dominant ethnic group, can't go to that ethnic group, but to the demographics of that country. I explained my claims and on my talk page, you can read them. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sashko1999#The_DEMONYM_refers_to_all_citizens_of_one_country,_and_the_ETHNONYM_refers_to_people_of_a_particular_ethnic_group Sashko1999 (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

You made a WP:cut and paste move at Accession of Macedonia to NATO. This is not permitted as it loses the attribution of contributions. I have reverted the move. It can be moved correctly when a consensus is reached; it is currently prevented from being moved except by an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Oh, I am sorry, forgot completely about attributions. Good catch. Now I feel like a noob. While I was able to move all other articles, I was unable to move this one. A consensus on the country article's talk page has been reached 1 day after someone else's previous move attempt was undone. Which means that, when the previous move was made, there was no consensus (yet) over the country's new name. But now there is consensus over the country's new name. In this context, the other pages such as Accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union have already been moved to Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union etc without problems. I would have initiated a RfM but in one of the Talk pages they said that RfMs are not required and that they can be moved citing the overwhelming consensus in the country's article. So? Who would we ask for moving the page then? -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Classical language

Thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Prespa Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work on with the 2019 Macedonia Name RFC. We finally rewrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and you have my utmost respect for your courtieness throughout this process. Whenever things looked tough, I was glad that we had a voice of calm such as yours keeping things together. I can easily say that you made a positive impact. I am glad to have had the great pleasure to work with you! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @MJL:, I am speechless! What can I say? I didn't realize I contributed that much, but if you say so... Thank you very much! Btw this is one of the most beautiful barnstars I have ever seen. Again I wholeheartedly thank you!!! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Modern Macedonians and linear approach in Prespes for the Greeks

Prespes Agreement led to a change in the Macedonians(ethnic group) to Macedonian people. Prespes article 7.2 denotes a linear approach for the Greek Macedonia.

As such modern Macedonians in the proper description for Macedonian (Greeks) Unless we decide to keep the old set up of Macedonian Slavs and Greek Macedonians we have to adjust the Greek part as well to modern Macedonians .

Please comment on this.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melathron (talk • contribs) 10:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I already replied to you in the article's Talk page where a discussion has opened. [2] Please keep discussion in one place and do not bring it to my Talk page, otherwise other editors will find it difficult to follow up. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved offtopic post

I moved the following from the biography page of Greta Thunberg to here.

-- Ingmar Rentzhog of WDHT and «Greenwashing» --

Hello, it has come to my notice that Ingmar Rentzhog of the Swedish climate-focused social media company WDHT or We Don't Have Time, (the organization in which Greta Thunberg was a volunteer advisor role), is promoting «Greenwashing», a term used by companies to manipulate people into believing that their products/services are environmentally-friendly while actually can be harmful to the environment.

Source for this is a newspaper, To Pontiki (The Mouse), in Greek language: [3]

Does anyone think this information is worth adding into the article? Given how Ingmar Rentzhog himself played a pivotal role in attracting public attention and fame to Greta Thunberg. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The WP:TPG allows removal of off topic posts. What some other guy did or is doing does not belong in a biography of someone else. If this guy has a biography something about this might be appropriate there. It might not. I haven't thought about it. But at least the proposal would be related to his BLP if it exists NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Greta is leading a campaign for the environmental protection, but people supporting her have ties to her family and questionable links with the environment-polluting industry. The source I provided is about her campaign and the people who supported her campaign. I hardly can see your point of it being off-topic and unrelated to Greta. If this isn't about what gave Greta notability in the first place, then what is it? I am going to revert your edits in the article's talk page and restore the discussion unless you can really explain to me how the people who played a pivotal role in Greta's campaign, aren't worth mention in the talk page of the article of hers which has a dedicated section on her campaign. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In your own words above Ingmar Rentzhog... is promoting Greenwashing. Not that Greta is doing so. Are you claiming the source you provided levels this charge against Greta? If its an accusation against Ingmar but not Greta then it is offtopic at Greta's biography. If the source itself does not explicitly charge Greta with greenwashing, then you personally are connecting the dots, doing a form of WP:Original research akin to WP:SYNTH. OR and SYNTH are prohibited. In addition, we have exhaustively debated how to handle Ingmar's role in all this. See talk page archives Talk:Greta_Thunberg/Archive_1#We_Don't_Have_Time and that one references an earlier thread at School strike for climate. Finally, the article already mentions Ingmar in two different sections. Those references are directly tied to Greta via reliable sources. Your desire to insert greenwashing claims against Ingmar and his company have nothing to do with Greta, who parted company with the company the instant she learned she was being used to raise money. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:, you didn't even read the source before reverting the discussion as being offtopic! This is disappointing. Let me translate and copy here the information for your convenience: According to the newspaper, the acclaimed Swedish journalist Andreas Enricson has been investigating the 16-year-old Greta and his findings contradict what the teenager activist is trying to get out in her public image: Greta Tunberg served and advised those who she criticizes publicly during her time as an adviser to 'We Don't Have Time'. It is the source which says so. No WP:OR, no WP:SYNTH. It seems you really didn't bother checking the source, which not only has this information about Greta and links it to her campaign, but even more. I posted the information in the talk page as I want evaluation of information and opinion by editors who actually check the sources I am giving them or are at least aware of these findigns in other publications (The source refers to several other publications in fact, thats why) instead of having you making assumptions and reverting me on the grounds that the title of the discussion is... not about Greta herself. You are arguing that the discussion wasn't clear in that it relates to Creta, but if that was your concern, then you should simply have asked for more clarifications and give me the chance to explain or clarify further the original post. Which you didn't. I kindly am asking you to revert yourself or else I will do it myself. All I want is to bring to editor's awareness the information by the Swedish journalist, and see whether this information has any use in the article at all (I am not sure, and I doubt it does, but I will want the opinion of others to be sure on this matter). To get there, however, (I mean, get to get the other editor's opinions on the info) the discussion with the source, which was removed by you, needs to be restored. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

When an editor isn't certain about the changes they want to make to the article, they can post the sources to the relevant talk page, the place where improvements and information related to the article, are discussed among editors. This is how Wikipedia works. This is the proper place where we can discuss whether this information is worthy or if it is an improvement to the Greta article, at all. The article's talk page, not my personal talk page. Please restore the discussion. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't read it.... it's in Swedish. No I didn't read it because you never claimed it was about Greta=Greenwashing. You only claimed it was about Ingmar=Greenwashing. Your representation, at Greta's BLP, did not obligate me to read it because Ingmar=Greenwashing at Greta's BLP is off topic. But to continue, your translation above does not link Greta and Greenwashing, only that she was on the advisory board. It doesn't say what advice she gave, if any. It doesn't say what she knew about operations, if any. Any speculation that Greta was involved in Greenwashing operations is pure speculation. That's a violation of BLP policy. If you want to put it back over there, go ahead, and all the other experienced eds will tell you the same thing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

PS Speaking of not reading things.... did you read the archived thread I pointed out to you? You just said All I want is to bring to editor's awareness the information by the Swedish journalist, and see whether this information has any use in the article at all (I am not sure, and I doubt it does, but I will want the opinion of others to be sure on this matter). That matter was THOROUGHLY and EXHAUSTIVELY debated in the prior thread. I'm not sure we used this specific source, but we sure looked at others. Unless we have evidence, we assume good faith. Here, I have evidence of carelessness at least and bad faith at worst..... the prior thread was given to you, and you haven't indicated that you read it, much less that you have anything new to add. I believe it satisfied your claim about what you say is All I want.... But of course operatives want to keep reslinging old mud. I hope that's not what's going on here, and you've just not taken time to see what's been said about all this before, but if you do, and that's really all you want, I believe it will answer all your questions. But if not, if there is some new wrinkle we haven't already beaten to death, by all means, please share the new original thought at article talk and we can improve on the current consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't read it.... it's in Swedish. You didn't read the source, you arent EVEN reading my comments which you reverted. Even you called the source Swedish while I clearly explained in my comment that it is written in the Greek language. Are you sure what you are talking about, at all? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just adding a note for archives in case this blows up... I read the tl;dr paragraph up to the word "translate" and assumed it was in Swedish which was apparently incorrect. I also read the next part, the important part, which was the proffered translation. I read the assertions I detailed in my prior comments. And then I quit reading the tl;dr paragraph. Ordinarily I wouldn't add this at all, after dropping the stick, but the comment about "censure" makes me think we should have a complete record for ANI/AE if this goes there, and I don't trust my memory. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You claim this has already been discussed thoroughly. Fine, I will check the archives you pointed me to. But if I find it has NOT been discussed, then I can't help but wonder if you wanted just to censor my discussion. I really am having this unfortunate impression. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Time for me to WP:DROPTHESTICK here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello, SilentResident! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! John from Idegon (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This editor has been here since 2011. This message is misplaced. Dr. K. 03:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I never got this welcoming message. Its long overdue. Been waiting for it 8 whole years. At last, it arrived! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Time passes so fast. It seems like yesterday when I signed on Wikipedia myself. I guess, under that definition, everyone is a newbie. Dr. K. 03:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert BLP

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 shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 the 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems the editor NewsAndEventsGuy has been reported to the ANI [4] by someone else, for throwing unecessary ARBMAC notifications on their editor talk pages (as is the case with this unecessary ARBMAC notification on own Talk page). Given this is an behavioral issue not limited to my own talk page, I brought now the incident to the ANI's attention: [5] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Appreciated! ;)

Yourbubblegum (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Final word from me

I understand that you are "withdrawing" from the discussion at CfD, so I will just give you my final comment here. We have had our clashes, sometimes rather hot, but I can assure you that there is no mistrust on my part. My intention with the clarification question was to ask "Do you really mean that?", and since you obviously do mean it, I can only conclude that we disagree. And as far as I am concerned, that is that! We will surely meet again in another discussion, and if I am unsure about how to interpret any statement of yours, I may ask you to clarify, as I do to others. I can assure you that if I do, it will only be to ensure that I understand you correctly. See you around! --T*U (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor:, I don't know about you, but in case this wasn't made clear all these times: I am looking beyond our disagreements and clashes, and I highly appreciate your work and input in Wikipedia. When I see you, I see you as an editor who has been in Wikipedia for a very long time and proven himself as a responsible, aware, well-informed and reliable editor. I regard you as one of the most respectful editors who have contributed alot to the Wiki project, and my only true concern is whether our fights and clashes may have affected your personal perception of me. I really hope this isn't the case. Now, don't get me wrong, I am fully aware this has turned into a personal discussion, and indeed it does feel weird having such a discussion on talk pages about relationships. Usually, the User Talk Pages are better meant for more Wiki-related discussions and issues. However, if you feel like wanting to discuss this more in private, then feel free to PM me, OK? I will be more than happy to reply back. Have a good day! :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Advice

User:SilentResident - You asked me for advice in what appears to be a dispute with Future Perfect at Sunrise. I will give you some advice that you maybe didn't ask for. You can ignore it, but it might be useful even if you won't want it.

First, I don't think that it is fair to say that Future Perfect at Sunrise is punishing you for a disability. It appears that you may be demanding special treatment because of a disability, and that isn't your right. See Wikipedia is not therapy. Future Perfect at Sunrise is complaining about copy-editing your posts after you have posted them. I don't know why this annoys them, but it obviously does. It isn't necessary to copy-edit your posts after you have posted them, because you can copy-edit them before posting them. I see from your user page that you are referring to obsessive-compulsive disorder. If you have an obsession to copy-edit, you can always look for pages that are tagged as in need of copy-editing. You don't need to copy-edit good-quality articles, and you don't need to copy-edit talk-page posts, because you can and should copy-edit them before posting them. I don't know why it bothers FPAS, but it does bother them, so don't do it.

Second, I see that you referred to Future Perfect at Sunrise as having a pro-Turkish point of view. I don't know whether they have a pro-Turkish POV, and I don't intend to research their history. However, saying that another editor has a non-neutral point of view is not helpful and can be seen as insulting. I don't think that it was intended as a personal attack, but a Wikipedian who prides themselves on their objectivity will be insulted by being accused of a non-neutral point of view, and may take it as a personal attack. So don't say that another editor is non-neutral, unless you are prepared to back it up at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement.

Third, there are certain topic areas in Wikipedia that are subject to battleground editing, and some of them are subject to battleground editing because they have historically been real battlegrounds. Some of them have ArbCom discretionary sanctions because of their histories of battleground editing. You are going into a topic area that has been a battleground since the Trojan War 3203 years ago. Use caution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I appreciate your advice. I went on your page to reply but it was gone, so i am posting it here instead: :::Dear Robert, nevermind, I simply was broken down emotionally when i wrote this to you and now I regret this. I don't want to be perceived as weak or vulnerable person. Everything is ok now. really. Please, can we forget that? Have a good day.--~~~~

About the OCD, yes indeed it is complicating things but and I managed to limit its consequences on the main articles at least, thanks to the advices of another editor. However expected talk pages to be more relaxed areas, hence why the multiple edits there compared to the main articles themselves.

About referring to them: You noticed that I was referring to them as having pro-Turkish point of view, but that was the one half of the coin. I do not even want to disclose here how they had called me hundreds of times in the past (nor I care, I am used to it) and since he is a moderator too, This is one more reason for you to avoid checking their edits. It is not worth the time. Have a good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in dealing with content disputes or assessing non-neutral points of view -- like, zero interest, deal with that elsewhere -- but if you ever feel you're being asked to somehow 'rise above' your disability, please email me, ping me, or post to my talk. --valereee (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thanks. I really appreciate it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Standard notice

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 shown interest in Eastern Europe or 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 the 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.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

First you bullied me for simply editing my own talk page comments repeatedly: [6] and when someone criticizes you for doing that: [7] you decide to show up on your victim's talk page and keep bullying them through warnings: [8]! I am impressed! Really did you thought that by bullying me you will cure the OCD from me? Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

I recommend that you read this article here thoroughly: Obsessive–compulsive disorder. And when I say thoroughly, I literally mean it. Perhaps it can help you understand why I keep editing comments repeatedly. This will make you feel grateful and thank God you don't suffer from this. Now, do yourself a favor: go focus on content instead of editors. Have a good day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Btw, this isn't a warning. If you do not want to receive this specific notice in the future, then you just need to place {{Ds/aware|b}} on your talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Thing is, the warning came right after I was bullied with sanctions [9] and I refused to comply with his sanctions [10]: Had the warning happen at a different time and for other reasons, then it wouldn't have been perceived as retaliatory. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] That more apparent now, but in itself it's just a piece of bureaucratic procedure. Either way, I hope all the best. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident, I doubt that you can have this "warning" revoked. The Arbitration Commission takes the view that, once advised of a DS regime being in place, you can't be un-advised, even if the advice was posted as retaliation. The advice is not meant to be any kind of sanction or warning, though it is often seen as such. Try to remember that it only means sanctions can be imposed for editing that is inconsistent with policy, however. I doubt that the "rule" FP@S has declared is valid under standard policy nor the DS regime – first, because your editing was and is policy-compliant, and second, because he is (IMO) WP:INVOLVED with respect to you. I recognise that FP@S's posts may feel like you are being bullied into an OCD cure, which is impossible of course, but AGFing, he may just be overreacting or having a bad day. I don't believe his "rule" will survive the ANI thread. You likely feel bullied / hounded and mistreated, which is understandable in the circumstances, but try to remember there are many Wikipedians who recognise your contributions and can see that the present situation is unfair. Please don't take any actions on your feelings beyond expressing yourself and let the ANI process play out. I echo the comments of others asking you not to leave, though I'd understand if you needed to take a break. I hope and believe that this can be sorted out in a fair and reasonable way. EdChem (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem and MJL: thank you for your kind words. As well as thank everybody at the ANI for their support. I appreciate it. If you ever need anything, please let me know, I'd be glad to help. Have a good day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User TalkPage protection

@El C:, the year 2019 in Wikipedia was a very difficult period, I admit. The death threats earlier this year, and now this bullying incident, had their toll on me and I need a break from Wikipedia. However my Talk Page is seeing some disruption lately. Can you elevate my user talkpage protection for a while? I would appreciate this alot. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Future Perfect at Sunrise.

Just an FYI because I mentioned you by name in this thread. Your participation is welcome but not required. – Levivich 22:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Turkey

I will be drafting an addition to that page, as discussion of refugees is long overdue there. If you have other useful sources like the Die Welt one, I'd greatly appreciate. --Calthinus (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Fairly alarming situation

Hi, we've never met before, but I've often respected your editing. I'm not sure who else to raise this with, but I feel that this needs to be raised with someone. If you look at this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Macedonian_Diaspora_(2nd_nomination), I think the situation is quite alarming. I'm not sure if I am allowed to say why it's alarming, because I'm not sure what Wikipedia's exact policies are. But it's quite alarming for a number of reasons in my opinion anyway -- first of all, the very obvious fact that policy blatantly suggests the article should be deleted, yet supposedly this is contentious. But beyond this, I'm not really talking about any specific AFD or article. I think that this AFD hints at the beginning of things to come, it shows the start of a failed attempt, but that things could get much worse in this regard in the future. The details are all in that AFD if you read it. I'm not from the Balkans so I don't have the same focus on this topic that other people do, but I do still often edit Balkans pages. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Apples&Manzanas: There have been some notorious cases linked to the UMD and its head, Metodija Koloski. Specifically, Koloski's racist comments against Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks, as well as lobbying efforts in various countries (often jointly with Turkey's diaspora organization TCA), and (unverified?) accussations of bribery and corruption by the Turkish government, I am not sure I would support deletion of UMD's article. It is a fact that they gained some limited attention by reliable sources. Wikipedia already has articles about diaspora organizations of other ethnicities, so why not this as well? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't trying to get you to comment for or against deletion, but I responded to your point at the AFD. I guess you may have missed all of the other comments on the AFD -- I was talking about a deeper issue, not related to the specifics of whether that article should or shouldn't be deleted. Look at some of the comments from people on that AFD, about how a member of that precise organization is on the record as trying to stack Wikipedia with their members to fight for their particular agendas, about how a member of the organization laments their own organization's article being deleted and "now [they] have to start from scratch", about how that organization plans on starting a Wikipedia task force. etc. As I said on the AFD "I think it's an unusual coincidence that (A) A member of this organization has led a campaign to recruit people to fight for a POV on Wikipedia. (B) This exact organization's wikipedia page gets nominated for deletion. (C) A bunch of Wikipedia editors, with extremely few edits, and edit histories which all largely relate to Macedonian nationalism come to defend this organization within hours of it being nominated for deletion. This is of course, an unusual coincidence. I'm not casting specific doubts on any individual, only talking about statistical likelihoods in the aggregate." Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No adhesive article about Erdogan & AKP policies in the region?

@Dr.K., Calthinus, Khirurg, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Alexikoua: I am not sure where to open this discussion so, if it was wrong to ping you, then my apologies in advance - the reason I pinged you all is due to your contributions to Turkey-related articles in the past.

As you probably know already by now, there is a lot happening in the region of Eastern Mediterranean lately, with the common denominator being the Erdogan-led AKP government of Turkey. The sheer ammount of information that is fact-checked and added to Wikipedia about AKP's policies in the region is underwhelming. Dozens of articles were created/updated about AKP-related developments, however I have noticed something missing: an adhesive article which can connect together all the other articles about the AKP policies in the region which otherwise are too many and messy to look at, as a list: (i,e 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War, Northern al-Bab offensive (September 2016), Operation Olive Branch, Operation Spring Shield, Turkish military intervention in the Second Libyan Civil War, Libya–Turkey maritime deal, Aegean dispute, Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Russo-Turkish confrontation in Syria and Libya, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present), Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, Cyprus dispute, 2018 Cyprus gas dispute, Gaza flotilla raid, Muslim Brotherhood, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, 2016–present purges in Turkey, Turkey's media purge after the failed July 2016 coup d'état, Block of Wikipedia in Turkey, List of media outlets shut down in the 2016 Turkish purges, List of educational institutions closed in the 2016 Turkish purges, Human rights in Turkey, LGBT rights in Turkey, Gezi Park protests, Media censorship and disinformation during the Gezi Park protests, Neo-Ottomanism, Turkish nationalism, Erdoğanism, Qatar diplomatic crisis, Armenian Genocide denial, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Greece–Turkey border, European Migrant Crisis, 2017 Turkish constitutional referendum, Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018, Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency, Hagia Sophia and more.)

I admit I have never seen such a sheer ammount of info related to the strategies/policies of a certain leader and his political party, being too spread out across that many articles, yet, with no single adhesive article to make it easier for the readers to get a more comprehesive and complete picture about the the particular person and his party in the region. Both the articles Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Justice and Development Party (Turkey), which are dedicated to the leader and the party, aren't suitable for this.

Any ideas? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Foreign policy of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response, Calthinus. Actually, the foreign policy of the AKP government, is driven/influenced by domestic realities and political agendas inside the country. Foreign relations cannot be understood properly if we ignore the domestic developments and the political situation in the country. Perhaps a more inclusive title? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The motivations of said foreign policy can be covered in such an article. Unfortunately, if you were going to make a page about "Turkish nationalism and neo-Ottomanism and micro-imperialism" or whatnot, it would never be cohesive, because there are too many competing ideologies in Turkey on that matter (Turkish nationalism vs. Soft Islamism vs. Hard Islamism vs. Secular neo-Ottomanism vs. not-so-secular neo-Ottomanism vs. non-nationalist denialism that just arises from the domestic media/educational situation vs. stable border-ism vs. Anatolianism vs. ... you get the idea). The policies of an administration are concrete though. It's not really our job to synthesize information to make points to readers anyways, and they will figure it out on their own.--Calthinus (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not synthesize, but cover the key points of AKP's long rule in a chronological order, as well as being able to add information that extends beyond the topic of a single article. For example the Gaza flotilla incident isn't unrelated to AKP's pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies. Likewise, the Turkish intervention of Libya isn't done for good samaritan purposes, but for the control of Lybian oil, and it isn't unrelated to the Aegean Dispute for the control of natural gas. Also the mercenaries Erdogan has sent to Libya are Syrian mercenaries who fought in the Syrian Civil War. Also the Kurdish issue inside Turkey isn't unrelated to the military operations in Syria and Iraq. The issue of strong popular support to nationalist parties in Turkey isn't unrelated to the polarization and tension the Kurdish problem has caused to the Turkish society, which is one of the main causes for the poor human rights records in the country. These are just some examples of how much we are missing if everthing is divided into separate articles without mentioning about AKP and Erdogan's policies in the region as whole. The connection between articles is some sort of a web; sources exist proving the connection between various incidents and the policies AKP is following. According to the sources, always. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(re your later addition of Nagorno-Karabakh -- really, this has very little to do with Neo-Ottomanism or Erdogan really. The conflict predates it and support for the Azeri side may or may not be based on whatever ideology, Azerbaijan is kind of Turkey's Cyprus you see...) --Calthinus (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually there is. Turkey is along with Russia one of Azerbaijan's main arms suppliers and one of the most staunt supporters of the country in its military conflict with Armenia. Neo-Ottomanism or Erdogan after all aren't just about political support or shared ideologies but also about geostrategic cooperation and arms trade with like-minded organizations or regimes. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Russia is more on Armenia's side though yes Russia likes to arm both sides and watch the little gladiator match with popcorn. As is Iran a covert supporter of Armenia because it fears Azeri irredentism. You know who is almost as staunch a supporter of Azerbaijan as Turkey? Israel. There are many, many reasons to support Azerbaijan or to support Armenia. As Shiites, the Azeris are unlikely beneficiaries from a Sunni-centric ideology as Neo-Ottomanism. --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The escalation of tensions in Nagorno-Karabakh happens at a time where there is a dramatic boost in Turkish assistance to Azerbaijan and increase in nationalist remarks by the ruling elite of AKP and its partner party, the MHP, that the Armenian threat "should be dealt" with and that Turkey is ready to send soldiers to fight ("to get martyred" [sic]) at Azerbaijan's side against Armenia. Its inclusion to Wikipedia should be the least of our concerns; in the event it is ever added, it should be done per sources and even so, it would hardly get more than a sentence on its own. Just it depends on the context. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay that's fair and all. I'm just warning you, if you want to make a new article, you have to be seriously worried about scope creep. --Calthinus (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

About the revert on Greek-Turkish relations

@Khirurg:, I don't want to break three revert rule, so I just want to know why my edits reverted. If there's a problem with sources, I can find better sources - but I think the sources are enough.Ahmetlii (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, you are using unreliable and dubious sources by newspapers influenced by the Turkish government. You have either to find independent and reliable sources, or not add it at all if you can't find them. Erdogan's propaganda has no place in Wikipedia. I recommend you use the article's talk page of the article to discuss the problems with your edits, and work on them, not the user talk pages such as the present one. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I find some sources that I know they are reliable, here, here(yes, maybe you're still thinking that it's dubious), here(I think it's more reliable). If you're still thinking they are not reliable, I can say that they are not deprecated and used other articles in Wikipedia as I know. Also, as an user, I'd like to remind Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources; yes, it's an essay, but also important. If you're still having questions, I will use the ways that mentioned at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, thanks for warning, but also I know the rules as an normal user.

Note to your second note: Yes, I'd love to discuss these on the article's talk pages, but also nobody isn't checking them so much as I learnt.Ahmetlii (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

CNN Turk is controlled by the Turkish government I am afraid. In 2018, a pro-government company with close connections to Erdogan bought CNN's Local Turkish branch [11] and it can no longer be considered reliable. Anadolu Agency is the government's official agency and has already fallen short of Wikipedia's WP:RS too. Middle East Eye's article lacks basic principles of journalism as it is reporting directly on footage released by the government which have not been evaluated by third parties. Promoting the narrative of a government, doesnt make a source credible enough for use in Wikipedia. You will need independent reports which cover on the issue objectively. A report by the English version of CNN or something like that, will be a good start as it is still independent and reliable. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, and I guess that I proved the fact, from another source.Ahmetlii (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Another one.Ahmetlii (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Youtube is inappropriate as as source and editors are advised against citing the video hosting website. Do you have the Telegraph article? If yes, this can be cited. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have a link to the article, but it has been moved or deleted. I will look for an archived one.Ahmetlii (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh? That's strange. Telegraph almost never, or very rarely ever deletes reports unless they found something problematic or fake in the story they report.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's more strange than you might think, because I cannot find an archived page, in archive.org, archive.is and others. I'm not thinking that the report isn't fake or problematic, because they didn't delete video and the report link on their YouTube channel. If I'm true, they probably moved the report here. If there's not a question mark/a problem on the news, I can add it with proper style and with the resource.Ahmetlii (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

OK there is also this: [12].

However, the British reports are merely replicating Turkish ones, which are showing naked immigrants being "stripped and beaten by Greece and sent naked back to Turkey". but a quick look around the web, shows that these are fake news. In reality, the immigrants had their clothes removed by themselves, not Greece's authorities. Here is a photo of the immigrants undressing for the needs of the photoshooting: [13] and then posing naked in front of the cameras: [14]. If you look carefully at the photos, it is the same immigrants standing next to the same trees as in the photos used by the reports, proving to be the same location and same people. However, the two revealing photos im giving you here, were strangely omitted from all the Turkish reports (and subjequently, from the British ones as weell).

Flash.gr, a historical website of Greece, published the missing photos which expose the Turkish Government's propaganda: [15]. Im sorry to say but this isn't the first time we see Fake news about the Greek-Turkish borders. There were more, such as: [16] (Which I mentioned them in Aegean Dispute's talk page). If I were you, I would be more cautious to not trust the government-controlled media in Turkey. Propaganda has no place in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC).

The Sun is one of the deprecated sources. I'm understanding the propaganda you might think, but also I suggest you to not to use unreliable sources. Historical newspapers doesn't mean that they're telling the truth. For example, the border is in the Sun is wrong, it treated as Meriç + Karaağaç, İpsala in Treaty of Lausanne. (I'm tired for the discussion, so if you're still thinking that I'm citing from propaganda, I will request for RfC). Maybe I didn't all of your sources, but also some of them are same and I replied in here. If I'm not using proper grammar, sorry.)Ahmetlii (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only the Sun, but also Daily Mail had reported on this. Not that it really makes a difference here but their reports were based on CNN Turk and other media outlets in Turkey, which are no longer considered credible. And yes some historical newspapers in Turkey may no longer be reliable but tha that's a different case and has nothing to do with outlets in other countries. You are welcome to take the matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, seek dispute resolution, etc, but don't use my own Talk page for issues related to articles. Use the article's Talk Page. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advices. I will add the sources like this(according to WP:3RR, I will need to wait), so I guess that it's  solved.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I havent noticed that. This must be a recent addition. However I believe some of the sources cited, especially Youtube, will have to be removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions

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 shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. 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 the 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.

Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring about Navigational Template & Aspersions

If you continue edit-warring and keep removing the CA template even on articles about primary settlements of this group I will have to report you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sure, go ahead. But be ready, as it is likely to backfire at you. You will have to explain yourself to the Admins, as they will like to know why the edit was made without seeking WP:CONSENSUS first. The guideline WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is quite clear in that such changes are ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Yes, in case you didn't realize it, the only discussion so far, was in the template's talk page, and not in the individual article talk pages.

And since you are there, is highly recommended that you also update yourself about Wikipedia's policy, WP:EDITWARRING, and save yourself some embarassment! because the Admins may also wonder why you have ignored the part of it where it says: "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring". For me, this part is the most essential for a healthier and less toxic Wikipedic climate between editors, unlike your threatening messages in my user talk page. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

SilentResident: you can always remove comments of non-productive nature. No need to waste time.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Thanks my dear. I appreciate it.

But in case you didn't realize it, in my 10 years as an Wikipedia editor, I haven't *ever* removed messages or discussions (or even threats such as the ones from the OP here) from my Talk Page. Perhaps because -unlike others- I do not consider my User talk page to be an extension of my public image or whatever. Whoever removes comments from their talk pages, for me is an sign of weakness, low self-confidence and insecurity.

Plus, by keeping *all* the messages and discussions in my Talk Page (even the ones I do not like), is like I am maintaining some sort of transparency and honesty, and that's a great feeling! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• If you repeat your WP:ASPERSION about "nationalist agendas"[17] again in any way, shape or form I will immediately contact an admin and ask for oversight in relation to your personal attacks. On Parga, I have written about Albanian and Jewish presence and on many articles I have written about Greek presence, Slavic communities and almost every other community which lives in the Balkans. If you feel so you can definitely believe whatever you want to believe but you can't accuse other editors about having a "nationalist agenda". Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Im afraid this is not an accusation but an acknowledgement of a situation which you caused already and your actions have been registered both in the History Log and the Talk Pages. Disruption and edit warring to bypass WP:CONSENSUS instead of addressing other's concerns in the Talk Pages? Really? And adding the template navbox to articles where the navbox has no... whatsoever link to them?? And that, again without CONSENSUS again? If this isn't some sort of a joke! Sorry but your writings about Albanians and Jews on other articles doesn't ring a bell to me (not that I care anyways since this is irrelevant) and it doesn't make up for your wrongdoings on Greece's city articles. Right now all I see from you is just your POV flag-planting attempts across several these city articles and using incomplete info from translated non-English sources (!) to back up your claims for which no sources are available! You believe that we were wrong about your flag planting? Then, for a start, learn to understand how important the WP:CONSENSUS building is for the stability of Wikipedia as whole. Also a look at various Greece topic area talk pages and see how the editors usually use the Talk Page for disputes where they make compromises instead of acting like how you did. Lastly, I recommend WP:BRD and especially the part where it says: "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting". And down below, where it says: "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. Which you HAVEN'T done either, where the same edit: [18] (which was already reverted) now has been restored by you despite the other editor's concerns in the talk page about it. If you are incapable of reaching consensus with the other editors, then I suggest you seek either a dispute resolution or go away. Edit: my fears were confirmed: you once again have restored the disputed edit despite our concerns in Parga's talk page. It became clear to me that you are incapable of addressing other editor's concerns adequately. I took the initiative of making the necessary edits myself to address the issue in place and have the information in question reflect better and more accurately the source. My edit can be found here: [19] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• You have made 3 reverts on Parga (same thing by me, for that matter). So WP:3RR should be kept in mind. It is pointless to argue over whether Parga's history is relevant to Parga or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Krtimi, the contentious additions to the article against the WP:CONSENSUS and despite the objections by 3-4 editors in the article's Talk Page aren't the way to go. Instead of edit warring you ought to seek a consensus and work on resolving the disputes you have with the other editors instead of... bragging about your 3RRs. That's just disturbing. Edit: sigh, it is pointless to try reason with you anymore. You ignored (again!) our calls for WP:CONSENSUS and now more editors had to revert you for brute-forcing your way to the article: [20]. I'd advice that you drop these tactics before it is too late or else you may get banned. This is serious. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Current events have gotten me thinking about the effects of polarization, including within our topic area. I share your concerns about the appearance of bilateral "flag-planting". Looking at the constant warring over the placement of the Chameria and North Epirus templates, I was wondering if there was a possibility for "bipartisan" support for an initiative to remove both from any and all geographic entities, and to only place them on articles about history (i.e. of Greeks in Southern Albania, and of Chams) and etc. While I don't imagine this would fix all problems, I hope that it could maybe make a marginal improvement. Thoughts? --Calthinus (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Cal, honestly I have never been part of the Northern Epirus template discussions / placement, and thus I am not very familiar with it. Albania topic area is of low priority for me along with Western Balkan/Italian/Roman and Libyan topic areas. This is due to my focus being more eastwards, towards Northern Macedonia, Turkey and the East Med geopolitically-wise. About the Northern Epirus template, I checked it and I found these facts about it: 1) It is used in articles of cities which are still inhabited by North Epirotes, but not in articles where they do not live. 2) it has consensus for its inclusion. Are you suggesting that the one template is treated the same way as the other despite these differences? If the others agree with your proposal, I don't see why it shouldn't work. As long as you all have consented to this beforehand. As for me: I am participant only in the Cham Albanian template dispute and I would not like it that the other editors show no compromising attitude here, by pointing to another template dispute which is irrelevant to this one. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your consideration. I can certainly understand not wanting to be sucked in here; hope all is well. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Unlike some of the sources you seem to favor and are severely outdated from 50 years ago"

None of those 6 sources is outdated. They are: Elsie 2015, p. 2; Galaty 2002, p. 119; Counillon 2006, p. 27; Tzitzilis 2007, p. 745; Picard 2013, p. 79; Ceka 2012, p. 60. Relieving any stress you feel to others with aggressive edit summaries and pointless comments on tps will not make people more willing to agree with you. It will only give you more stress and waste you time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't play the dumb with me. In Amantes (tribe), one of the most modern sources, from Heinz (2014), is being removed by you on the faulty grounds that... a source equals zero sources(!) while in the very same paragraph a severely outdated source from Toynbee (1969) is being kept, despite Wikipedia's WP:AGEMATTERS recommending the opposite. This mess is happening only because you are obsessed with certain POVs and narratives about Greek nationalism, to the point of even dragging everyone to seek resolution via pointless RfCs (Parga) to resolve these POV disputes your very own side has caused in the first place, just because you couldn't be reasoned with. Haven't you done enough damage to the articles already? No, I do not seek to make people agree with me, I want you to do us a favor and go away! That will solve my stress. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you will have stress for a long time then, as I will not "go away" :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, are you sure about that? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sure I will not go away, but maybe you are not sure the reason of your stress is me or anyone else editing there :) My advice to you is to never show your stress or anger to other people. There are rude ones who make fun of angry people. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC challenge

That is a hilarious comment. I never "challenged" the RfC. Maybe you are referring to some editors who first stated that the RfC was invalid. But none of them was me. Do not mistake editors for each other. On the "clutter" thing, take a look at and compare my posts there with yours. Good luck with that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to your editorial side, where one editor challenged the RfC on survey section instead of discussion section, and another editor (you) did the same with his questions. But if that's what you understood, then ok. At least I tried to keep it organized. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Blue Homeland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blue Homeland, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Homeland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious

dispute and agreement

Thank you for quality articles such as Prespa agreement, for expanding and updating articles such as Aegean dispute and Macedonian language, for help in many languages, for missing Yoninah, for "I love knowledge." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2586 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm speechless. Thank you, Gerda Arendt, that's a great honor! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope that you don't mind that the award comes from the cabal of the outcast ;) - whose active members enjoy cheering up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course not! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Gregorios Zevgolis moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Gregorios Zevgolis, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Appears notable, and could have been left in mainspace, but no improvement has been made since it was tagged for more references. If I left it in mainspace, I would have to remove all the uncited material, and I thought it better to leave it as is, but move it into draft so you can work on the sourcing. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, the problem with the sources has been fixed and the article has been restored. Thank you and good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident, already been reviewed and approved by the extremely eminent Bkissin below. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you both! :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gregorios Zevgolis has been accepted

Gregorios Zevgolis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Bkissin! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Just notifying you that I have started a dispute resolution that you are involved in if you want to contribute to the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nikola_Karev

--SeriousCherno (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not edit other people's talk page postings (including noticeboard postings)

Hi, thanks for your contributions! I just wanted to remind you that it's not really appropriate to edit other folks' talk page postings and such. (see here and here). WP:TALKO gives guidelines about this. I haven't reverted your changes because that would be an additional disruption. You can always leave additional information under the "comments" section, however, as you did here.

Have a great day and thanks again for your support on this ... Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

But isnt this the report's diff filling section? I wasn't editing your comments but the report's diff filling section for the admins to see all the diffs tidied up in one place. I thought Reports are meant to be for that purpose, no? (At least that's the impression I have gotten when other editors edited my own reports. I didn't mind others editing mine, but if you do mind about yours, then my apologies, this wont happen again). Also thanks for your patience. The article is protected and I can't make any improvements to it until protection is lowered, including the typos. But if there is anything I can help with, let me know, I will be happy to help. I will also keep an eye on its talk page and hopefully the dispute is settled. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange question

Okay, so like four years ago you added a reference to Cham issue. A month later it was copied to Albania–Greece relations. I have figured out that you were trying to cite this copy of Meyer 2008, but I can't find the quote here on page 705. Just a few moments ago, an anonymous editor modified the quote on Albania-Greece relations, but I can't say how true that quote is because I don't know where on page 705 you originally got it from. I would like to revert if the IP was falsifying that added part of the quote. Care to help me out? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: your question isn't strange, my friend. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, (I really ought to find why the Wikipedia Watchlist feature isn't working properly for me, as the technical issue is making me slow in spotting such changes by myself). Now I have reverted the problematic IP edits as the changes were poorly worded and un-ecyclopedic. The "using as pretext" which implies that the minority was kicked for different reasons than the stated ones, is usually a view held by nationalist cycles and goes against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy and also against what the scholarly consensus has concluded on the matter, that the collaborators of Nazi Germany, as well as the German minorities in Europe and the Balkans, were expelled due to their collaboration and as retaliation. Thank you again. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Much appreciated!
Would you mind fixing the citation as well? I'm still not sure if you meant to cite page 705 there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: Ohhhh yes, I don't know how this citation's weird code escaped my scrutiny. Fixed! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Arvanite matters

There is a bit a of hijacking in the articles related to Albanians in Greece, Arvanites etc., the latest is this [21] and thought to bring it to your attention. Othon I (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Can you please explain to me how Alexander the Great was born in Pella, Macedon, "Ancient Greece" on 356 BC when at that time Greece did not even exist. It was the Kingdom of Macedon or Macedonia. Greece the country and name was founded March 25, 1821, thousands of years after, Greece the country and name did not exist at that time. Please show me any proof to that in 356 BC Greece existed? JohnTeff (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@JohnTeff:. I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM where we can argue over our personal opinions. The article of Alexander The Great reflects on what the international bibliography (WP:RS) does state on the matter, not what we the editors may say or believe to be the correct perception of history (WP:POV). If you have any sources confirming the edits you have tried to make on the article of Alexander the Great, you are welcome to share them, not on my talk page, but on the article's talk page here: [22] so that more editors can access them and evaluate them and try seek WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No need

For apologies in the edit-summary at talk Imia. I know that you still have anxiety due to the past incident. But the past is irreversibly gone. You saw the support you got from the community last time. Cruelty days are over from that source. Irreversibly over.--Dr. K. 00:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the sweetest things I am ever told. Thank you so much for your emotional support. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You are very welcome, SR. Thank you also for your nice comment. Take care. Dr. K. 04:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi SilentResident! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Rollback confirmation, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Your are the best by dealing with trolls with your stick. Keep up with your good work. Alexikoua (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel I have done anything particular, but I appreciate your kind words, Alexikoua! Thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you SR!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your tireless efforts and exceptional handling of demanding situations. Well done! Othon I (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is just me, but I don't think what I did was as important, it is that you and the wiki community, understood the necessity for neutrality and supported the notion for bringing it in compliance with the project's rules. But thank you, Othon I for your kind words! I appreciate it! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Your comment here is dangerously close to a personal attack, and I would suggest you strike it. I assure you that Paine Ellsworth is very familiar with our naming rules. You have wisely expressed here a desire not to let your "badgering-like misconduct" detract from the real issues, but you now have 8 comments at the MRV. IMHO, you are harming your case more than helping it. I strongly recommend you step back for a while and allow uninvolved editors some time to read through this complex RM. Havelock Jones (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Havelock Jones, you are right. Expect no more comments by me there. Thank you for your feedback. Edit: it has been striken. if there is anything else I can do, let me know. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hi, SilentResident. I have received your e-mail. Unfortunately I'm too unfamiliar with the area to be of any use. Bishonen | tålk 19:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

Understandable. For now, Greeks is more pressing, but will wait until 2022, and if the situation worsens, in 2022 I will bring the case to the AE. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Noted. A while ago, I had noticed some sources about it. I will try to find them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very nice of you. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Kozani

Dear SilentResident, could you please modify the montage you added to the infobox of Kozani to make it non-interactive? It is indeed representative of the city etc., but it is extremely puzzling and even startling for an unprepared user who, clicking on the thumbnails, expects to view those high-resolution images of notable areas and landmarks etc. but instead finds himself/herself in a random section of the article or on a different page altogether and there is no way he/she could see the images you added. —2dk (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@2dk: To see a bigger resolution of the images, click on the blue round icon with the white "ί" (located at bottom-right corner of that montage). On the other hand, the sections within the montage send you to their respective articles/sections where relevant info may be found, even if minimal, so they are not exactly random sections, just are undeveloped. This was done with the hope that the editors may be encouraged to actually expand them. Hope this helped. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

NPA

Hi SilentResident. I must say I am disappointed by this comment of yours. Particularly: "It is understandable that the primary topic, "Cyprus" is ambiguous and a nuisance to you considering that the island, for you is a place where more than one entities exist". I don't know if you were getting at something else, but from where I am standing, this is a comment on my being Turkish Cypriot. See WP:WIAPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". I won't respond to you any further in that discussion, but if such comments are repeated in other discussions, I would have to escalate it. --GGT (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"but from where I am standing, this is a comment on my being Turkish Cypriot" Sorry GGT but you misunderstood it. Obviously I don't care about your ethnicity or where you are from and I do not need to know either. We are in Wikipedia, we are involved in a dispute, and we ought to address editorial complaints/concerns, and commenting on these editorial complaints and concerns is a totally different thing than commenting on an editor's ethnicity. My statement: ""It is understandable that the primary topic, "Cyprus" is ambiguous and a nuisance to you considering that the island, for you is a place where more than one entities exist" is solely based on your expressed concerns of ambiguity considering that the term "Cyprus" may for you mean more than just the Republic, such as the geography or Northern Cyprus among others, all which I have already explained on that talk page. If you allow me, I will quote your complaints/concerns here 1) "this article's name is incredibly unhelpful.", 2) "I find the current title ambiguous and frankly a nuisance when I'm writing about Cyprus", 3) "The problem is that our article titles cannot be context-dependent, they need to have WP:PRECISION, be unambiguous. That's why the proposed move would serve us better than the status quo., and 4) to back your arguments, you pointed on how "the greater consideration of the bicommunal nature of the island". In this context, I understood that you see a problem of ambiguity (and semiological confusion) of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the other topics such as the island (geography) or the community which lives in the other, breakaway state of similar, yet not same name, Northern Cyprus. And by reading my response, you can understand that my response is simply addressing your concerns and complaints: 1) your inconvenience when editing about Cyprus and 2) how the international community is regarding Cyprus as primary topic, regardless of whether there are more entities (or precisely, communities living divided into separate entities) on the island, such as Northern Cyprus, and 3) how there is no risk of semiological confusion considering other examples such as Sudan and South Sudan. After all, you can tell for yourself, considering that the other sentences further down in my reply, leave little room for doubt that I was referring your editorial complaints/concerns, and pointed on how I have done in similar cases in my capacity as editor, where I too had similar concerns: I.e. if you see my edit contributions, I have been editing articles that too were (albeit not anymore) prone to cases of semiological confusion, such as the case of the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia, where the careful wording allowed for the plain name Macedonia to be used for the state even though this would otherwise cause semiological confusion with the region of Macedonia or other entities with the same name, such as the Kingdom of Macedonia, or the historical Greek province of same name. Just it is upon us the editors to accomplish that. Simple as that. The next time I would kindly ask that you don't rush to come into such serious NPA accusations. Good day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to have misunderstood - I've also taken the liberty to fix what I assumed was a typo in your comment above (NPA rather than SPA). I just don't think that the subsequent comments provided sufficient clarity to indicate another intention in your original comment; the sentence I quoted emphasises me after all, and such personal comments are all too often thinly veiled. I have been the target of NPA criticism in the past and I see these as opportunities for self-improvement; in this spirit, I would kindly suggest that if you're addressing someone's editorial concerns rather than them as a person, you use different phrasing in the future. Using language that is prone to being misunderstood can be disruptive in its own right, no matter how noble the intentions. Don't know where in the world you are, but from where I am, I wish you a good evening. --GGT (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GGT: Maybe you do not know that this is how I am communicating with people (fortunately or unfortunately). As a person with disabilities, communication and expression were never a thing for me. These difficulties in writing and communication not only affect my English language skills, but also my mother tongue in ways worse than in English, resulting to the discouragement of my participation (as an editor) in the mother tongue's version of the Wikipedia. That's why you are seing me being more active in the English Wikipedia but not in any other Wikipedias (including the native language's version). However, even in the English Wikipedia things aren't exactly easy for me. You probably have noticed how my comments even on the English Wikipedia are marred with frequent editing. I have to live with that, but try reduce the impact on others by using the Preview mode on another web browser, but I am not a magician to make it disappear. I hope you understand. PS: hardly has anyone accused me for PAs, even in cases where there are misunderstandings due to the way I express myself, thankfully, but it is a fact that I have gotten complaints about my frequent editing. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well this is me being insensitive then (feel free to WP:TROUT me, or can I self-trout?). I certainly understand, and I will do my best to reserve any presumptions going forward. Take care. --GGT (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No, its ok. Really. If there is anything else I can do for you, please don't hesitate to ask me. İyi günler! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus RM

I would encourage you to strike your remark "Disputing Cyprus's name is really unfortunate to hear here from an experienced author such as you." on Talk:Cyprus. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oups, sorry, the tone is problematic. I can see that now. My sincere apologies. Rewording to better tone: "To hear an experienced author claiming that Cyprus's name is controversial, is really unfortunate, considering that no one ever has challenged the country's name besides the Turkish government (which however didn't just challenge just the country's name, it denies the state's existence all together). A view that no third parties, not even the scholars and experts on the Cyprus question do share, at all." Sorry for that. And I would encourage that you re-think your position in the RM. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt! Nice to see you again! Wholeheartedly wishing you a good day! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hi SilentResident. I saw that you've expanded Aegean dispute in the past and thought you might like to know that I've created a related article for the Franco-Greek defense agreement. I plan on working on US-Greece Mutual Defense Cooperation Agreement in the future too. I wasn't sure if you'd want to tackle one or both together but I thought I would reach out. Cheers, —  dainomite   16:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dainomite: good work! Frankly I didnt realize that having their own articles would be useful, but now that I see it, I think it is, since it allows for further expansion in case more developments related to the agreements themselves, arise.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Hi. Can you tell me why you are undoing my changes? You have to justify one by one where do you object. HelenHIL (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I just left a message on your talk page. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article. You are not allowed to undo collectively all my edits. If you have any objection tell me what it is to discuss it. You are undoing even mistakes that I have corrected. HelenHIL (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am not the one vandalizing the article, I am simply defending it from problematic changes that were made without seeking consensus. Do you understand that the changes you have made to it, ignored difficult compromises among editors, by removing or altering sensitive information in the article that shouldn't be removed? I strongly recommend using the article's talk page instead of ignoring the consensus and edit warring to your preferred version of the article. Note: not my talk page, but the talk page of the article you are trying to make the changes. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have to have consensus for correcting mistakes like double entries. Stop causing issues and tell me in particular where do you object HelenHIL (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, a quick look at your edits (i.e. there and there ) show that the purpose isn't to improve the article and merely fix errors as you claim, but to make POV changes that are characteristic of the far-right Macedonian nationalism. Your edit summaries like this one "It sounds as someone wrote it to as propaganda" are also unhelpful, since the article's content is the result of compromises by several veteran editors whose work is praised and this is reflected by the fact that the article has the Good Article (WP:GA) status. I strongly suggest that you keep politics out of this and refrain from using such edit summaries ever again. The last thing the article needs is disruption like this. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• SilentResident, some friendly advice for the future. After you reverted HelenHIL the first time, you should have warned her. When she reverted again, you should have not reverted her but instead reported her. Reverting her three times was not a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your swift actions are much appreciated. Yes, I will keep this in mind for the next time. Take care and have a good weekend, Bbb23! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey

I have the impression that the dispute is getting you tired and maybe is causing stress to you. If so, see the good side that you have made your efforts to find consensus. It is not your fault if others insist too much on their own. The "worst thing" that can happen is the article being reverted back to the stable version. That version was not bad after all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I appreciate it. I don't mind reverting to the old consensus, even with EOC restored along with it, albeit I prefer Proposal 6 to EOC's restoration. Whatever you can agree with, be it the old consensus or the new one once the talk page discussion has concluded about the lede adjustments to the chronological order of events, etc, I am up for it. Thank you and everybody for your constructive approach in the talk page. Also thanks to Ashmedai for their insight with the Souliote history, plus both him and Alltan for their kind words. By the way, @Ashmedai 119: since you addressed me quite a few times as "he" or "his" which is a tad confusing compared to the customary neutral "they" or "their", feel free to address me as "She" or "hers" instead. Again, thank you all (including Çerçok!) very much for your time and positive attitude in the talk page.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Just had to say this. The compromise would not be possible without you. I'm glad that today we have shown the Wikipedia community that the BALKANS topic area is not all bad. I can confidently say that this is largely due to your efforts, and look forward to any future work and editing with you. :) Take care. Alltan (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Xhufi supposed RS claim

It appears there is a ton of nationalistic rhetoric launched by this politician-historian, it's one of the crystal clear POV examples. Scholarship doesn't hesitate to reject his work altogether. Quite characteristic is the quote below [[23]]: In contrast to the differentiated opinions in Greek history, institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressively nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi). Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric. Xhufi also published material-rich, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays such as Manipulimi i historisë: rasti i Epiriti
This is published by the Austrian Scientific Academy at 2015 and there is no reason not to believe it. Alexikoua (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: My apologies for taking too long to reply, yes I am collecting these western sources on Pëllumb Xhufi for the RSN report I am preparing and I appreciate your help. These sources are important for the third-party folks at the RSN to valuate and conclude on the extremist politician, I am told there is more from Western scholars on Xhufi coming this fall. Hence I appreciate if editors involved in the dispute regarding Xhufi's reliability, have some patience and keep in mind that additional RS is required for verification. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:45, 26 September 2022 (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. 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!

Alexikoua (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible sock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TurkicEtymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BiasReverter Shadow4dark (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark: Hi. Yes there are some similarities, but I can't tell for certain whether these two accounts are related. Submitting a SPI request might be a good idea. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained removals

I wonder why you removed [[24]] cited information about the return of Northern Epirotes from Greece to Albania after the financial crisis. Are you threatening with blocks in the edit summary? Alexikoua (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: I am not sure if you realize that it was editors edit-warring and ignoring the long-established consensus that led us to the article getting locked by the Admins, with a POV warrior getting warned for a block, and a Sock-puppet getting banned, only for the rest of the editors trying to help restore stability to it, by establishing a new consensus. Which is done via talk page participation instead of making any edits by ourselves directly on the article, edits that would be potentially contested by others. If you do believe that your edits constituted an improvement, then you should bring them to the talk page so that the others can discuss, analyze and agree upon as well, even if you are confident that none would challenge your edits. That is how a consensus is formed and strengthened.

I am sorry to point this out to you but your participation to the talk page discussion has, thus far, been non-existent: [25]. Editing the article directly by ignoring the new talk page consensus, sets a dangerous precedent for future POV warriors to get the green light to do as they please with the politically sensitive topic of the Greeks in Albania population figures and is exactly the reason I am warning all the editors to avoid doing by giving the first example themselves. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yet you did not address the issue of your unexplained removal of cited information. Your revert was conducted with a generic explanation and certainly understand that this isn't a constructive explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I kindly recommend that you check the article's talk page and address NebY's points and seek there a consensus instead of asking for explanation by me for upholding the consensus. I will repeat for a last time: Editors who make changes to the infobox's entry about Greeks in Albania wihtout seeking consensus, will be reverted and that applies for everybody. None is above consensus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't just remove the infobox entry but performed a blind revert in the entire (sourced) prose too (cited by Rapti & Bouras). You know that. Simply reverting everything with only partial explanations can be disruptive too.Alexikoua (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Your edits were misleading and used in an way to alter the consensus for the infobox, which is a red line and there can be no exceptions: consensus must be respected by everyone. You have been an editor in Wikipedia for more than 12+ years, and you know that better than me. If you want to change something, you ought to use the talk page to discuss the matter. By the way, I am not the only one who is finding problems with your additions that affected the consensus, but also editor NebY in their reply to you at the article talk page [26], which is what makes me believe I have done the right thing. And no, no matter how well sourced it is, the ONUS for the information falls on those who makes these edits. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If you were unaware

You might be interested in this discussion. Off Wiki-coordinating, directed at Turkish articles, was discovered on Discord. For being a "new user", Fulcrum0 seems to know about the NPOV policy by their 14th edit!

If you were already aware of the discussion on AN, then by all means ignore this message. Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Thank you for notifying me. But I do not know what to do with this information of yours, so I will forward it to the ANI and leave it to the admin's discretion. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Posts on my TP

From now on, do not post any false 'warnings' or anything else of the sort on my TP again, just as you did here [27]. You are obviously misusing these templates. Thanks. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ahmet Q.: I am afraid there is no template and the reason I didn't threw a formal warning at your talk page is exactly because that was not my intention. Its merely a friendly message about your misconduct violating the core content policies because I assumed WP:GOODFAITH despite your violation. As an old editor that you are, I am sure you are already aware that WP:VERIFIABILITY is one of Wikipedia's WP:FIVEPILLARS and if you are found to violate it repeatedly, then I will consider formal warnings as well, if that is what you prefer instead. However, it is up to you if you will use this opportunity to remedy for your behavior without forcing us to get to such a point where formal warnings or other measures may be needed. Following a friendly advice never hurts. Good day.

Edit: and also I suggest that you are more careful with your edit summaries next time, as this [28] is inappropriate and violates WP:CIVIL. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Nationality for BLP

Hi SilentResident! I'm really sorry for bugging you, but I was confused by an edit made on Giannis Antetokounmpo's page in regards to his nationality. While it appears that he does hold dual Greek and Nigerian nationality, I was told by an editor, that his talk page discussion had "consensus" to state in his lede sentence that he is a dual national[29] I'm reading the talk page discussion right now and I don't see a clear consensus stating that he should be called Greek-Nigerian in the lede sentence. The discussion appears to be users going back and fourth on whether he is actually a dual national, people pointing out WP:ETHNICITY and if it should be noted that he's a dual national in the infobox.

I took part in the discussion much later, which appears to have mostly happened in the summer of 2021 and early 2022, so I'm just wondering if there ever really was a consensus on this? We know that he reportedly has dual nationality/citizenship, but Antetokounmpo was never born in Nigeria and has never represented the Nigerian national team. I see at least one user who posted on 29 June 2022 (Nickmariostories) who was against calling him "Greek-Nigerian" and I assumed you and "Rikstar2" were against that on the grounds of WP:ETHNICITY. So I'm not sure where the "consensus" happened?

EDIT: It appears that the "consensus" happened circa. 22 May 2022 after two users found confirmation of dual citizenship, updated the lead prose and infobox and have been unchallenged in nationality discussion since then? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Clear Looking Glass:, you stated that "It appears that the "consensus" happened circa. 22 May 2022 after two users found confirmation of dual citizenship," but verifiability doesn't warrant inclusion I am afraid. See WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." Also, I am afraid WP:MOSETHNICITY has been violated, and this guideline's violation comes at a time where there was (and still is) a lack of a solid, clear WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page for such an addition. The WP:SILENT cannot be seen as an endorsement for violating the guidelines. For the record, it was not my choice to be silent, the only reason I didn't respond at the talk page sooner was simply because I didn't receive any notifications about new comments or replies in it. I am sorry for that and I don't know how to fix it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@SilentResident - Thank you for responding to my comment and clarifying the situation. Again, I'm not an an expert on every single guideline, but I did not see a consensus on the talk page and it looked like quite a few users were against adding other nationalities in the subject's lede which confused me.

I also get the issue of you not getting any notifications on the talk page. I've certainly had my share of talk page conversations that did not alert me as well (for whatever reason). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SilentResident - I've see that you've proposed an RFC on Anteetokounmpo's page on 10 January 2023, but it doesn't seem like you went through with it? I'm just wondering if there should still be an RFC because it seems to be a contentious issue.

Also, I know you asked if Antetokounmpo is an exception to dual nationality, but I think there's been a weird thing with Formula 1/race car drivers. Anytime one possesses dual citizenship, even if they were never born in or represented the country that they possess citizenship to, it gets added in the lede. I believe talk the page of Lando Norris has shot down several users who've attempted to argue that his Belgian citizenship is irrelevant to his career as a British race car driver (even official F1 sources just state he is "British"). I'm not sure if seemingly ignoring WP:ETHNICITY seems to be a thing across all sports-related BLPs though.

While I do enjoy editing on Wikipedia, it really is frustrating that ultimately, every page is its own entity and Wiki guidelines can mean nothing if enough users vote against it. But, it is what it is. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I believe, the Antetokounmpo's Talk Page instead of my own Talk is a more suitable place for sharing your concerns on the matter, since it allows for others interested in the topic, to access them easier. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

HI @SilentResident - I'm sorry about that! Ultimately, I was wondering if you were going to start the RFC because I never one saw one started after you mentioned it on 10 January but I'll keep my discussion back to his talk page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Byzantine Empire text

Hi! I would appreciate if you could participate in an RFC that just opened up. Thanks! Elias (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alltan (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Note about user Alltan: Editor Khirurg had the courtesy to help me realize that editor Alltan was involved in a set of round robin fashion reverts along with several other editors against me right before throwing this warning on my talk page: NPOV Noticeboard diff and has provided a full list on the matter: List of evidence.

Keeping this for future AE reference. Thank you, Khirurg! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)