User talk:Alessandro57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Link in UNESCO

Hi Alessandro57,

Why did you remove the edition that I created in UNESCO page?

Please, don't misunderstand my question, I only want to know the reasons and learn about it.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Alessandro57. You have new messages at SLV100's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Italian GDP[edit]

You are using the old GDP.You must check [[ List of countries by past and future gdp (nominal). I posted it on the Talk of "Econmy of Italy".

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Wolfgang Müller-Wiener, Alessandro57!

Wikipedia editor Modern.Jewelry.Historian just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

You need to make the references in line (ref number after the text they support). See Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners or this could get deleted by the bots.

To reply, leave a comment on Modern.Jewelry.Historian's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DYK for 25 Luglio[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment[edit]

Roman unification of Italy[edit]

Hi, I have edit the page "Italy" adding Roman unification not because I am a fascist (fortunately I am not) but because I thought that it could be a right thing. I have seen that in the page "Egypt" it talked about the unification of Egypt done by pharaohs and they have inserted it in the same part where I wrote about the Roman unification of Italy. I know that Italy and Roman Italy are completely different, but I think that also modern Egypt and Ancient Egypt are different. I don't know why we shouldn't insert the Roman unification. Excuse me for my horrible English. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your answers you have been clear and I agree with you 1300 years are too may to say that Roman Italy and Italian Republic are linked. I will not modified more until have discussed about it in the talk page. Thank you and ciao!! -- Nick.mon (talk) 9:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Ahaha ok I completely agree with you. And puttanata is the right term! Bye -- Nick.mon (talk) 9:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Ahahah yes I don't think that in this moment they will be very interested in Wikipedia, they have other things to do. -- Nick.mon (talk) 9:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

disruptive edit[edit]

Please don't make edits such as this which amount to falsification of ITN criteria. Given your political statements, further edits like this will be looked on poorly if reported to WP:ANI. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Medeis,
I just read your message on mytalk page, and I am puzzled: what's the problem with my edit? And which are my "political statements"? Thanks a lot an advance for explaining it, Alex2006 (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I just read the requirements for updating an article in the news, and I start to sentence is not enough. Sorry, it is the first time that I propose a blurb in the news, my sincere apologies. Now it remains only to understand which are my "political statements"... Alex2006 (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Riccardo Giacconi[edit]

C'e' scritto nationality: Italian, American. Perche' quindi cambi quello che correggo?

I answered on your talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it.

News about Myanmar[edit]

Good day! Could you help to add news? [1]--Many baks (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request on Racism in Italy[edit]

Could you please elaborate on the article talk page? Thanks Face-smile.svg -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia[edit]

Why do you prefer to stick with December 25th from Janin(1953) in the lead paragraph? When Mango and Scott make an explicit note on pg 316 of their translation of The Chronicle of Theophenes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813" Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997: (AM 6030, AD 537/8) "2. Theophanes' precise date should be accepted....". Surely, Mango and Scott (1997) were just as aware of Janin (1953) and respectful of his opinions, and wanted to get the date right as a matter of historical accuracy based upon the written record? You yourself must have good reason to supersede Mango and Scott (1997). I just don't know what they are and how they pertain to the rules of wikipedia. So please explain. Thanks. Neubauer95476 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Neubauer, I answered on your talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. I appreciate you looking into this, you'll save me a trip to the library to thumb though Janin again. Just to give you a heads up. There is also a good study of the etymology of the naming of the Hagia Sophia in this article by Granville Downey "The Name of the Church St. Sophia in Constantinople" Dumbarton Oaks Washington DC Harvard Theological Review, January 1959, Vol 52 Issue 01. "Logos" does not appear with the name apparently until about 813 and 916 in Theophones Continuatis. Procopious in both "Buildings" and "Wars" writing between the first and second dedications refers to The Great Church simply as "Sophia" without any modifiers. Neubauer95476 (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So Alex, you are so right that I don't understand the Wikipedia rules :-(. But I am willing to learn. I do understand that you are the godfather of the Hagia Sophia page, and have an opinion regarding Janin. As a researcher, I am trained to look between the lines, and surely Mango and Scott were addressing an old issue when they added the note about the date in question. I gather from this that Janin probably argued the case for Justinian wanting Christmas Day, while the surviving fragment used in Theophenes and Malalas has a written date, and Mango and Scott emphasize the written over the conjecture. So my question for you is: why are you personally taking sides? Certainly Mango and Scott's remarks should be in the lead paragraph regarding the written record, while Janin's conjecture can be added in a section regarding a critical analysis? But then again, you are the godfather :-) Neubauer95476 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

G7 and G8 in main presentation of Italy article[edit]

The presentation of Italy is ADEQUATE ,anyway G7 and G8 must be set like for all othe states in the presentation article at the beginning when are listed the institutions of which is member the state.There are the Symbols of Italy and the image of the Flag and of the Italian President.The ranking and the prestige of these MUST for honesty and correct behaviour be respected like in other states articles.Non si possono postare i Simboli del paese senza associarne un'adeguata e COMPLETA presentazione.Questo viene rispettato per altri stati come ad esempio United Kingdom e quindi questo va rispettato anche per l'Italia.Grazie-Thanks)Glc72 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Egon Bretscher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engadine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Zeyrek Mosque: Difference between revisions[edit]

Hello Alessandro57, and thanks for your input. The link Conquest of Constantinople leads to Fall of Constantinople and is used in daily Turkish language. Thanks, Yozer1 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Italian Empire Map[edit]

Ah ok, now I have understand...I don't know why they do it wrong, but I don't know how to modified it, maybe you are better than me in doing it... -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok perfect, I think that's a good idea. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Seven Hills[edit]

You are not worth me spending my time on. If you can't even understand what I am saying - and calling it vandalism to boot - then I am wasting my time. When I find the time I'll take it to the talk page and elsewhwere where necessary. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I made an edit as is the nature of the WP, you reverted my edit and suggested I discuss it "if [I] don't like it". It is not a matter of liking - it is a question of logic, pure and simple. If there really are seven hills (at least 230 cities in the world claim to be built on seven hills), they they have been there for billions of years, it has nothing to do with them wanting to copy Rome.

And, I reverted ONCE, you reverted TWICE and you are going to block me for reverting? Intersting! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Please, grab a calculator and do the sum of the sourced data in the infobox. Where the number 140 million comes out? --Enok (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please help me against the IP's disruptive edits? --Enok (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for your invitation, I will join your discussion as soon as possible. The "Italians" article really need an update. I tried to do job but unfortunately some users seem blind towards reality for some reasons.--Francotti (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Alessandro57![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Alessandro57:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, CeeGee 10:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Peace sign.svg

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hagia Sophia[edit]

See message lodged on Talk:Hagia Sophia. Greetings from Los Angeles.--` (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My new username[edit]

Hello Alessandro,

It's Proudbolsahye. This is my new username. Etienne Dolet (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia, again[edit]

Hello Alessandro,

In accordance with WP:BRD, as you have frequently cited in order to intimidate users from attempting to improve Wikipedia, I would kindly ask that you refrain from editing the Hagia Sophia article and adding elements which make it even worse than the original state without any consensus whatsoever. For any disagreements, I encourage you to pursue a civil dialogue in the talk page and respond to valid arguments and concerns rather than dismissing criticism. Thank you. --` (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, my remarks were directed towards your "museum" edit, which you have gracefully removed. I thank you. However, I would kindly mention that I had made no attempt to change the naming. That had been done by another user. Furthermore, your refusal to continue the discussion on the talk page and address my concerns effectively guarantees that no "consensus" will ever be reached. If you are truly willing to engage in a discussion, please do continue our discussion on the talk page - I welcome it. However, please do realize that as it is you who has, to date, failed to defend your stance against my concerns, it is up to you to either continue the discourse or call for third-party intervention, not me, and that my stance, rather than yours, will prevail by default should you continue to not respond to my concerns. Thank you for your understanding. --` (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello for a third time, although the necessity of having to solicit a response to my main argument for the seventh time is distressing. So, one more time: all Byzantine buildings that may or may not have been mosques but are now museums have their names listed in a way so that Greek comes first, including the Hagia Sophia's names as listed in the parentheses within introductory paragraph of the same article. Thus, the different order in the listing of names within the infobox is both confusing and conflicting with the rest of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's editing process cannot occur if you stubbornly and arrogantly claim victory and block changes without ever even remotely adequately addressing or even acknowledging concerns the other party has raised, and certainly cannot occur when you proceed to send rude, threatening (never mind poorly spell-checked) communication to other Wikipedians. My request is simple: please address the concern I have been civilly directing at you for the past month, which I have included, as always, in my message despite your continued ignorance of it, or please stop accusing me of failing to seek consensus.--` (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for addressing my concern for the first time in half a month. Now we can actually have a legitimate conversation on friendly terms. I honestly don't see why the lead-in should be changed rather than the infobox, seeing that the lead-ins for other Orthodox churches turned mosques turned museums also have lead-ins that feature Greek first, which would make changing the lead-ins a much more disruptive thing to do. Moreover, while I understand there isn't a rule stating that lead-ins and infoboxes should correspond, they should to maximize Wikipedia's utility and clarity to the reader, no?

Thanks again. --` (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ostia (Rome)[edit]

Interwiki links are already replaced by Wikidata. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 07:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


Have you got any sources of RAI's involvement in production? Every source I can find only mentions HBO and BBC. Regards --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Languages of Europe[edit]

hello. take a look. thanks (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


As we say in Italy "better late than never". Thanks.--EnStat (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Mogadishu and Rome are not sister cities. The link alludes to a novel/fiction, not reality. In actuality, Mogadishu's sister cities are Almaty and Istanbul. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Arap Mosque[edit]

Hi Alessandro57! It's about your removal of the inscription's image. It is a fact that the inscription is attached next to the mosque's entrance. I would expect that the text points out to this misleading fact rather than ignoring it at all. Cheers. --CeeGee 06:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Italian GDP[edit]

All main articles similar to Italy like USA or France and many other main ones set already IMF 2014 data for GDP.the italian nominal GDP in 2014 is according to IMF 2,171 trillions $,the GDP ppp 1,808 trillions $,the nominal GDP per capita 36216 $ and the GDP ppp per capita is 30803 $.You can find all these data in the article List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) and related ones based on IMF Economic Database Outlook, april 2014.Italy it's ranked 8th and not 9th in fact Italy overtakes Russia.It's time to update in front of evidence.Thanks. (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I answered on the article`s talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I cited all to update.If you'll leave all dated i'm not guilty. (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the refs are still the old ones. You should change also them! Alex2006 (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Venetian Republic (2014)[edit]

I proposed this article "Venetian Republic (2014)" for the deletion. Could you tell us what do you think? Thank you in advance.--Ghepa90 (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


If you edit the page "Uzbekistan" without asking for the opinions of other users regarding your edit you will be blocked from the editing the article "Uzbekistan."


Can you give an explanation of your reverting edit? Better if you use the discussion page. Thanks. --Titiuscaiussempronius (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Language issue in Italy[edit]

Hi Alessandro. I used again the note a because Law number 482 of 15 December 1999 says that those languages are just protected by law (it's different from recognized). The same law states that Italian is the official language. The only languages recognized and co-official with Italian in particular regions and territories are French, German, Ladin and Slovene whose recognition is explained by Italian constitution and bilateral treaties (and this is already explained in the note a of the infobox).--EnStat (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Alessandro,

My name is Pantazis Houlis and I live in Kastellorizo. I am not sure of the purpose of deleting the link To me it seems you have not navigated yourself enough into it to appreciate its content.

For example:

1. It contains valuable information (especially the Greek version) regarding the origin of the name, including photos of the covers of extremely important books. 2. Direct links towards (extremely difficult to find for a normal user) to important old videos (1929 and 1943). 3. Direct communication with the seismic spot at the island (it was added recently). 4. Recent updates of the island's important phones for anyone to use (not just for "tourists"). 5. Many maps, including a huge old one (for archive purposes) which was directly donated by the Peiraius Kastellorizian Association and we have been given permission to put it online. More old maps to be added, as we have not scanned them yet.

Apart from this, it contains a lot more useful information, and I do not understand the scope of branding this site as "touristic", because it has absolutely no commercial gain in anyway (no paid advertisements).

Please explain to me this action. I believe you are using your status to have your way, and this is not fair for the island.

Pantazis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantazis Houlis (talkcontribs) 13:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal Link from Hagia Sophia and Bosphorus Page[edit]

Dear Alessandro57,

I have just received the notice of external link removal about Hagia Sophia and Bosphorus Pages with the reason of violation.

However seeking your kind review of pages that linked has pure content and has no commercial use.

Respecting your kind judgement related with rules of wikipedia.

Yours Sincerely, Gokhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makanpagi (talkcontribs) 07:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


hi, I look this, but in Sicily the name real is Trinacrìa! --SURDUS(VII) 15:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

ho capito e grazie della risposta :) salutamu e bacemu li mani :D --SURDUS(VII) 17:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
per curiosità siete siciliano?? --SURDUS(VII) 18:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Armenia discussion[edit]

Hi Alessandro57,

You undid my removal of the image

Seizure of Yerevan fortress by Russian troops in 1827 by Franz Roubaud.

. I explained the reason in my original post. This image is the same as on Yerevan site (capital of Armenia) and on Erivan fortress site (the old Yerevan). Note that no other picture repetitively appears in all those sites. I think the administrators should watch for these instances and prevent such cases themselves.

Regards, Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, I just did what you suggested on Armenia talk page. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Good day[edit]

Allow me to explain you a most simple concept: you (neither I, or anyone else, for that matter) can decide, establish and publish, which number is enough to come under the definition of many.

Perhaps you will fail to understand, so I'll use a most simple example: I may have eaten 20 candies, but you cannot decide they're many. At least, not on an encyclopedia! ( ;) ). How dare you judge on my indulgence in the joys of sugar?! 20 candies may not be many for my stomach. They may be few.

So I demand you at once to quit this disgusting hatemongering. State the number of these alleged camps, and source your statement. That many will disappear, till then. -- (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Country map[edit]

Hello, I think the map reversal from wiki's administrators should have been done few days ago when the long-standing dark green/light green map was replaced with dark green only. Based on wiki experience, a country map shows in light green uncontrolled territories (e.g., Georgia, Pakistan, Ukraine). Why Azerbaijan is an exception? Thanks, (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Country map[edit]

Hi, why did you revert the map of Azerbaijan with uncontrolled territories to the one without? All countries on wikipedia with uncontrolled territories are shown in dark-light greet palette. It was the case with this country too until few days ago. Do I miss something here? Cyber-Policeman (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alessandro,

Please see additional information on the Azerbaijan talk page regarding the map issue. Note that the map of Azerbaijan was shown in light green/dark green colors for more than 95% of time since November 2012 already based on discussion on the talk page. It was reverted to a single color format without following a proper procedure.

Cyber-Policeman (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous troublemaker at[edit]

Hello Alex- I see from the talk page of the above IP that you have also run into trouble with this person. Have you brought it to anyone else's attention? I'm considering putting something on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I'll watch here for your answer. Eric talk 23:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again- FYI, I reported the IP on ANI and at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported. Eric talk 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Eric, and thanks for writing! Yes, I agree, I was also going to report him. Anyway, I think that he is a typical case of disruptive Editor, so he belongs to ANI. We will see there :-) Alex2006 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input at the ANI, Alex. I think it might be helpful to change lager to camps so more anglophone readers will understand, and to change the South Tyrol link to the article's history. But I wanted to check with you first before editing your comment. What do you think? Eric talk 12:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you about both points,Eric. In Italy and Switzerland, where I live, "lager" is understood quite well, but this is for sure not the case in the anglophone world... Alex2006 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're attracted to brown-haired women huh? :-P[edit]

Have you ever been to the Middle East? :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Brown-haired people are extremely rare in Kuwait, but I'm one of them. :-P Have you ever been to places like Kuwait, Dubai, etc? :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You're supposed to assume good faith, Alex[edit]

Hi Alex. I just read a comment you wrote in the talk page of user Kwamikagami:

Turkish Language

Good morning, actually on Talk:Turkish language there is a discussion of the same time that you are having about Azeri language. I would be glad if you could bring there your opinion. The problem there does not seem to be big one at first glance, but this edit is part of an agenda, pursued on different articles, to "Europize" different languages and peoples. Alex2006 (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


First of all, you're supposed to assume good faith with regard to the contributions of all editors, not the least of whom are the well-established editors of Wikipedia. Your assumption that my edits are part of an agenda to "Europeanize" different languages and peoples is a false accusation on your part. Furthermore, all edits I have made to these articles are indisputably factual. I was rather disappointed to read that comment from you.

Last but not least, if you want to invite another editor for a third opinion, then by all means do so. But the fact you chose this specific editor -- who was involved in disruptive editing, deliberate removal of content and abuse of tags vandalism -- could only be seen as an attempt to gain consensus via canvassing. By all means, Wikipedia allows us to invite other editors to offer their views, but bringing this to the attention of user Kwamikagami, who was edit-warring and refusing to discuss his content dispute with me in another article talk page just recently, is unfortunately a form of canvassing.

Have a good night. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Kutsuit,

sorry, I don`t agree: first of all, I think that you are doing your edits in perfect good faith: you are just trying to let pass your POV that some countries (Azerbaijan, Turkey) are a little bit more European than they are in reality, and you really believe it: there are several edits of you that points all in this direction. Now, at the moment there are three editors who all have the same problem with you, in three different article, about the same issue. This means that we have here a general problem, and I find just normal to discuss this problem all together. Canvassing, means to invite friendly, uninvolved users to support your views, but this is not the case: moreover, in that case I would have invited him to join this discussion with a mail, instead of writing a message just below a message of you, where you were waiting for an answer: this shows full transparency. Good morning :-) Alex2006 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alex, but you weren't assuming good faith regarding my edits, otherwise you wouldn't have falsely accused me of being part of an agenda to "Europeanize" certain languages and peoples. All of my edits on Wikipedia have attempted to make the articles more neutral, informative and encyclopedic. My edits have made articles more consistent. The inconsistency of including the likes of Azerbaijan and Turkey in some Europe-related articles (but not in others) had to be corrected. I've made articles more consistent and more neutral, and expanded the definitions of certain terms with reliable sources. Therefore, if there are people who have a problem with me stating the facts then that's their problem. All information, concerning countries at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, that I've added to Europe-related articles have been cited by reliable sources, therefore for you to suggest to another member that I have an agenda constitutes a personal attack. Good morning to you too. ;-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Last but not least, I'm not trying to push any POV. That also constitutes not assuming good faith on your part, unfortunately. If you must know, there are many things I disagree with, but it doesn't stop me from trying to make articles encyclopedic. For instance, there's a particular political party that I downright despise, but every time a disputable edit is made to its page, I have to remove it because it's denied by the party, even if I believe what the edit says. I'm not here to push a POV. I'm here to classify things correctly and neutrally. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this[edit]

User talk: - you reverted most of his edits, but see the link I added at the bottom and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 - as you can see, besides the fact that he was clearly deliberately using misleading edit summaries, those edits were in violation of the ArbCom decision. I'm guessing it might be a blocked editor but I could be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I spotted another form of canvassing on your part, Alex[edit]

Alex, not only have you engaged in canvassing with user Kwamikagami, as mentioned in the posts above, but I have also seen you attempt another form of canvassing with user Psychonaut.

Before you deny it, here are the problems with your messages to these users:

1. With Kwamikagami, you have used a tactic known as "campaigning", by falsely suggesting to the user that I have an agenda to Europeanize certain languages and peoples.

2. With Psychonaut, you have used a tactic known as "vote-stacking", since you are already aware of the dispute I have with the said user in another topic, and therefore are fully aware of what opinions he may hold when it comes to disputes that I'm involved with.

This is the message you sent to Psychonaut:

Turkish Language

Good morning, actually on Talk:Turkish language there is a discussion related to your discussion about Turkish in Languages of Europe. I would be glad if you could bring there your opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I will say it one last time, Alex. If you try to game the system by attracting consensus again, I'll have you reported to the admins. You have actually rendered your contribution in the Languages of Europe talk page irrelevant by resorting to these tactics. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Kutsuit, Alex's contacting me was probably not canvassing, because according to the guideline, contacting "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" with a neutrally worded invitation to contribute is expressly permited as a form of appropriate notification. You and I were already engaging in a discussion of European vs. Asian Turkish speakers elsewhere. As long as Alex wasn't selective in contacting me (to the exclusion of other people involved in other discussions on the same topic), this was not problematic. It certainly wasn't votestacking as I never took him up on his offer to participate.
This is the second or third time in just a few minutes where you've issued bogus warnings to users based on imagined rule violations. (In one recent example, you told me that I broke a rule about issuing user talk templates. However, the "rule" you linked to is merely an essay, and in any case I never issued any user talk template to you.) Please cool it with the accusations. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your post Psychonaut. As I explained to Kuitsuit, I invited you and another user to discuss this issue together since all three of us were involved in discussions on very similar subjects at the same time with her on three different articles. Moreover, if someone with some experience wants really to canvass, he/she uses the email, and not the talk page. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)