User talk:Trideeglass

Welcome!

Hello, Trideeglass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Romania did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Kleuske (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is and isn't contentious in this situation seems to be decided upon arbitrarily. I wish to note here that my edit in particular contained absolutely no element that had been, at any point, deemed contentious. The establishment history of a state is not based upon ethnic boundaries. By this means, the first medieval polities to be established in Romania, for which there is scholarly consensus, as well as the De Facto Personal Union of Michael the Brave, are both elements of objective historicity. Why would an establishment history be attributed an ethnic character? Using similar principles, the Early Dynastic Period is included in the section present on the Egyptian article, although ethnically and linguistically it is evident modern Egyptian Arabic did not develop out of that culture. Trideeglass (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a modern Egypt, and there was an ancient Egypt, there was also an ancient Dacia, but there was no ancient Romania, and no medieval Romania. Romania simply didn't exist in Antiquity, nor in the Middle Ages.

And Eastern Europe has been singled out as a contentious topic because it is a cesspool of ethno-national WP:Advocacy. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt is, ethnically, unrelated to modern Egypt trough an "ethno-national" lens. I hadn't advocated for Romania originating out of Dacia, that was not the purpose nor intention of my edit, because from an ethnic perspective there had also been several autonomies with Romanian majority populations that are excluded out of the "Establishment history" section, and that I hadn't aimed to include. As a result, I do not conflate the Romanian ethnicity with the Romanian state, because Nation states had not existed prior to the 19th century (as per conservative historiographic conceptions). Historical periods such as the Middle Ages and the Modern Age in Romania start on the basis on different societal events, which I wished to highlight. Notice how I marked the "Aurelian Retreat" and not "Roman Dacia". On the series on the History of Romania, the Middle Ages are represented, including significantly the Early Middle Ages. It states on that article, and I quote "The Early Middle Ages in Romania started with the withdrawal of the Roman troops and administration from Dacia province in the 270s". This is the grounds on which I made my edit, as the formation of the first Romanian polities highlight the subsequent late medieval period (even if we are to ignore Litovoi, Bezerenbam and Mișelav, as well as other figures, Wallachia and Moldavia nonetheless represent prime examples of this time period), whereas the "Little Union" exemplifies the geopolitical facet of the Romanian National Awakening. Trideeglass (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also provided additional insight on the Talk: Romania topic I had created. I am indeed very new to the platform but I think it is important that contributions not be dismissed. I practically had only exemplified what is already in the article and on Wikipedia as a whole, aspects that do not seem to result in any sort-of WP:WAR. If possible, I would wish either arguments be made against what I had stated in the Talk section, or otherwise my edit be reinstated. Trideeglass (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who has reverted you. I informed you of the applicable WP:RULES and their reasons, further I will take a get the popcorn approach to this quarrel. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]