User talk:SilentResident

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Marianna Vardinoyannis article[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Marianna Vardinoyannis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have lifted the speed deletion nomination; that doesn't mean it isn't copyright vio, but a quick look suggests that you may have edited it enough that it's not an unambiguous violation, which is required for a speedy. I don't have time to work further on it now. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Converting the name "Thessaloniki" to the English "Thessalonica" for English Wiki[edit]

Please wait with that "Thessaloniki">"Thessalonica" renaming. You are introducing a whole lot of inconsistency between article texts and article titles. This is a pretty radical change and I can't say I find it obviously correct. This should not be done without first having a clear formal consensus about renaming the actual article. Please do a WP:RM before unilaterally changing all those articles. Fut.Perf. 09:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok. I just tried just updating the name to the English since thats the English wiki, (not that the other one isn't correct too), so Thessalonica to be much like all other old cities of Greece which ALL have English names. Dunno that it needed a consensus for that :o But ok. Can you ask for the consensus as I am not sure how to do it myself... :S And since it took me a whole hour to do the updates to the english name, I better leave this tedious task to someone else if consensus is reached. --SilentResident (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorting of member countries by territory or percentage order[edit]

Please read [1]. It shows the basis of the current ordering of countries and the consensus that was reached. The consensus is percentage of country within named region. Since nearly 100% of Macedonia is within the region of "Macedonia" it comes first. Then comes Greece since about 20% of Greece is within "Macedonia". Then comes Bulgaria, Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania (I think in alphabetical order unless someone has done the math to determine precisely what percentage of their territory is within "Macedonia"). --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Taivo for informing me about this. My bad, I thought it to be sorted by alphabetical order but noticed that it was sorted by territorial or population order except the first 2 countries on the list. Usually thats how countries are sorted in many other Wikipedia pages about regions. OK good to know. :) --SilentResident (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Naming Policy for the region of Macedonia[edit]

Dear user Vergiotisa, I shall inform you that in the English version of Wikipedia, your changes have been reverted as the name used for the republic is "Republic of Macedonia", and not "Macedonia" or "FYROM", as per Wikipedia rule. For the Macedonians, there is a distinction: Macedonian (Ethnic) and Macedonian (Greek), in case this helps. --SilentResident (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Silent Resident, I shall inform you that in the English version of Wikipedia, facts and legal correctness are more important than self proclamations. You have reverted to a name that FYROM proclaims itself but it is a name that is not accepted by the international community (UN) because it violates a historical name of Greece. "Macedonia" was an ancient Greek Kingdom in the ancient equivalent of the modern region of northern Greece. Copyright, State emblem laws the declaration of Human Rights on self identification and the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity all apply to PROTECT the name "Macedonia" from unrelated self proclaiming slavs to the north who are identified on an international level as the “FYROM”. As per Wikipedia rule, wikipedia is not the personal playground of propagandists. For the historical Macedonians, there is a distinction: Macedonian (Ethnic) is equivalent to Macedonian (Greek), because historically there has never been anything but a Greek identifying kingdom named Macedonia. In case this helps; anything else is factually incorrect and anyone insisting on this position is therefore pushing propaganda and for the record I will be taking this further until the appropriate corrections are made. --vergiotisa (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergiotisa (talkcontribs) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Vergiotisa, please check: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). As you see, your edits where you rename the "Republic of Macedonia" into "FYROM" goes against Wikipedia's consensus which declares that all English articles could refer to this country by its constitutional name, which is Republic of Macedonia, not "FYROM", even if the name is politically disputed. I agree that the Wikipedia is not a place of propaganda, but I am afraid that it is also not a place of politics as well. Please you have to comply with Wikipedia rules and refrain from renaming the Republic of Macedonia into FYROM. Thanks! --SilentResident (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear SilentResident I thank you for directing me to the: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) which are obviously the product of propaganda and the work of propagandists and which does not conform to United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 for the naming of the FYROM causing gross copyright violations of national symbols and state emblems as per Article 6ter: Marks: Prohibitions concerning State Emblems, Official Hallmarks and Emblems of Intergovernmental Organizations Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Propertyas well as violating article 29 # (2) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which limit self determination to respect the rights and freedoms of existing historical ethnic and cultural identities and article 2 and 4 of the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity that forbids infringing on an existing historical cultural identity. I will redirect my attention to making the appropriate changes so that the violations are rectified at the core level and from henceforth all articles for the FYROM conform to the new and appropriate guidelines. Your help has been invaluable (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think the Wikipedia is a ground where propaganda prevails, you are completely wrong. The Wikipedia clearly stated that the modern day Slav Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians are not related to each other, aside from the name. Alexander the Great, Philip, and the kingdom of Macedon were all Greek. The modern day Ethnic Macedonians are Slavic people, unrelated to the ancient ones. The Wikipedia already clarifies all that, and distinguishes the Republic of Macedonia from the rest of the region of Macedonia without the need to use the term FYRoM which is an alienated term that cannot be understood by most foreigners who are neither Greeks nor Ethnic Macedonians. Really, accusing the Wikipedia for being a ground of propaganda just because you don't agree with their neutral policies, doesn't mean that that will get your points right. Nor enforcing the use of the political terms such as FYRoM over the RoM helps. --SilentResident (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not accusing wikipedia I am stating facts, the legalities behind the use of the name "Macedonia" as well as the abuse by INDIVIDUALS with an agenda. You yourself have just admitted that this is an issue between Slavs and Greeks, two ethnic identities completely independent of each other which is what all the aforementioned laws, statutes and charters address. What are you arguing for then? The articles you are so vehemently protecting identify "Macedonians" and then they identify Greeks of Macedonia and you consider this "neutral"? By identifying the FYROM solely by the name Macedonia without the determination of "Yugoslavia" as the UN charter has addressed you are misleading the reader at the expense and disadvantage of the historically Greek Macedonians and it is this discrepancy that the international laws and thus the name "FYROM" are in place to clarify. Violation of international law that muddies the water for a political agenda will not be tolerated or excused by the term "neutrality". Your personal opinion (and your rhetoric which is nothing but opinion) means nothing. The use of the name disadvantages the real Macedonians and the movements of this gang of propagandist "thugs" who attack any attempt to apply the legal and correct version within wikipedia have thus far gone by fairly unchallenged by someone who is familiar with the legalities. This will now stop. Thugery and stand over tactics will not be tolerated in wikipedia and Sir when someone continues to take the side against the legal position then it is without a doubt an agenda. Good day to you Sir. Vergiotisa —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia can neither conform nor fail to conform to the United Nations resolution, as the UN resolution discusses only what the UN will use to refer to the nation; it makes no claim about what other folks who are not the UN should use to refer to it. As Wikipedia is not a UN project, that is a moot point. The claim that Wikipedia is violating international law by doing so has no grounding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you implying that Wikipedias judgement and opinion is above and beyond UN Resolutions and UN laws which govern the naming of Nations and The behavior of Nations with their Neighbors especially when both countries in question have signed to abide by those UN Resolutions and UN laws? Are you implying that Wikipedia is above the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity, WIPO and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which protects national symbols and state emblems. Are you an official spokesman for Wikipedia stating that you do not have to abide by any kind of convention of truth? Vergiotisa —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am stating that I have actual read the resolution in question, and found that it makes no statement about how other nations should refer to that nation, much less how private individuals and groups should do so; that even at that, it is not a UN law but merely a recommendation to the general body from the Security Council. I encourage you to read its text (it's quite short) so that you can see that for yourself, rather than continuing to misrepresent it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Security Council Resolutions are binding regardless of your lack of relative understanding. The UN Security Council engaged itself because it identified the misuse of the historical Greek name of Macedonia and deemed it a provocation and therefore a security issue. Its recommendation was that if the Slavs of a Republic of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia wished to include itself with the community of members of the United Nations, then it would do so ONLY in a fashion that did not violate the Declaration of Human Rights and the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity which the UN Security Council has adopted and which runs parallel to the UN Charter. The FYROM agreed to these terms making the resolution binding and thus it became a member state of the UN.
The burden of proof therefore is on anyone wishing to use any name other than the FYROM on an international encyclopaedic platform and must justify their position by include citations where the FYROM has participated in any formal international conventions, conferences, summits etc under any name other than the one allocated by UN Security Resolution 817 before they insist on another name that can and does cause discord between the two different cultural identities.
You have in your previous message agreed that this issue is one between two different ethnic identities, Slavs and Greeks of which the latter hold the historical identity of Macedonia therefore and in fact identifying and accepting the exact problem the UN Security Resolution towards the FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC sought to dispose of by adopting its binding Resolution 817at its 3196th meeting, on 7 April 1993.
Any continued objections to the name FYROM in Wikipedia, without valid proof to justify the use, that places Wikipedia in a position that adopts a biased policy against the very international resolutions, declarations, charters, copyrights and conventions that seek to protect from security issues arising from the misrepresentation of the “Macedonian” character in favour of the unrelated Slavs, indicates that the best interests of Wikipedia are not in mind but instead the objectives are of a more personal, dubious and questionable nature. --Vergiotisa (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, your claim about the "burden of proof" resides outside of the way Wikipedia names things.The United States of America gets referred to here by things other than its treaty name all of the time. Many people are similarly identified by things other than their legal names. If you wish to change Wikipedia policy, you'll find it best to address the Talk pages of those policy pages, not some user's talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia as you have stated previously resides within neutrality and the name currently pushed by some editors for the FYROM is one sided bias. The USA does not violate someone else's historical thousands of years old cultural name so that a UN Security Council Resolution was passed in order to regulate how it's name was used for it not to cause misrepresentations and security issues. You are not 'some' user. YOU reverted my legitimate edits citing a reason that is not acceptable on my personal talk page and you were answered. Thank you, yes, I fully intend to address and alter every fallacy and misrepresentation until all are correct. --Vergiotisa (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not SilentResident. You may have lost track, there are two other editors beside you in this conversation here. And having now looked at his edit on your talk page, all he was doing was summarizing some material from the Wikipedia naming convention regarding the Republic of Macedonia. He seems to have been playing within Wikipedia guidelines; if you have a problem with those guidelines, the best idea is for you to address it on the Talk pages for those guidelines and try to find consensus for change. Coming to his talk page and accusing him of thuggery, and misrepresenting both law and Wikipedia policy, is not going to serve your cause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not accuse anyone Sir I responded with the facts and clarified my position and the reason for my edits which SilentResident reverted and addressed on my page. Yes it seems I have lost track since I am not accustomed to having unknown third parties enter into a conversation between two individuals. There is no cause. There is only the intention to see neutrality and international conventions, resolutions, charters and copyrights adhered to. In any case I will be addressing the necessary talk pages hence forth. I thank you and the various others who deemed it necessary to enter into this conversation for your time and for your guidance. --Vergiotisa (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Accession of Albania to the European Union - Disambiguation link notification[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good notice. Fix applied! It should be good now. --SilentResident (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albania–Greece relations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • between the two countries, which Albania's previous government signed with Greece in 2009.<ref>[ Kathimerini Newspaper:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DONE! - Typo error corrected by adding the missing "]" to close the brackets. --SilentResident (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 Edit Revert War[edit]

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid it was you who started the whole Edit/Revert War, Future Perfect. I am kinda surprised you are now calling me to respect a consensus, when I did nothing but to add new content to the page that complies with what was in place already and while there was nothing in the talk page regarding the artwork by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris. You shouldn't have been reverting my edits for four (4) reasons:
1) You reverted my Good Faith edits in that page using the excuse that the historical portrait by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (which I added to that page) was... "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value". This was extremely poor argument you have used here, given that historical artistic depictions historical people and nations, in absence of true photographic material, is permitted in Wikipedia and does not violates the rules, and you can see portraits in almost every page in Wikipedia. From the page of Napoleon Bonaparte to the page of the Native Americans in the United States (so, both people and nations have portraits). As I explained in that page, the portrait was borrowed from another Wikipedia page, the page of Alexander the Great, so I don't see how the portrait that was already in use in Wikipedia, was "utterly unauthentic image" of "dubious encyclopedic value" for use in another, related, Wikipedia page.
2) If you have a dispute about the historical authenticity specific portrait, you should have used the Talk Page of that portrait in Wikia Commons, or the page where the portrait was used already. If you have not disputed the portrait so far, I don't see how can you dispute its future use in other Wiki Pages.
3) I gave you 24 hours to make some further improvements to the page since you removed my edits because you judged the portrait for being "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value", but you didn't make any improvements. You only remove other people's edits without actually improving the page on your own. So, I gave it another try, but this time with your feedback in account, and I used a historical mosaic found in the archeological site of the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Macedon (which was already in the page, just lower, and which I moved to the leading picture), because that ancient mosaic sure cannot be characterized for being "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value". But still, even so, you reverted my edits again...(!).
You had no valid reason to revert the second edits, because an authentic mosaic of that era where the people lived, is of ultimate encyclopedic value, I am afraid.
4) You did rush to revert my changes on the page right in middle of my ongoing improvements to that page, and thus, you prevented me from finishing the first couple of edits to that page. You rushed to revert my half-done edits within less than 2-3 minutes, without giving me the change to finalize them and before I ever give the actual final explanation of all edits in the "Reason for my Edits" field. I highly recommend, Future Perfect, you don't rush to mess with the ongoing edits/improvements made by other Wiki people especially since they are not vandals, they are only improving the article. Rushing to revert edits could be understandable if the people where vandalizing the page. However, if the people are just trying to improve the page, I could expect that they are respected and are given some time - lets say, 5-10 minutes - so they can finish their changes. After that, you can judge if their work fits and meets the quality standards set by Wikipedia. What you have done is to see only half the edits I planned to make to the page because you rushed to revert them within 2 minutes... so it was obvious that the unfinished edits seemed poor to you. I admit, however, that on my side, I should have explained my reverts to your reverts aren't full reverts - are just edits that take your consensus in accountange (I listened to you and put the mosaic instead of portrait in leading paragraph) instead of fully restoring my previous edits (which you reverted without a valid explanation anyways). I was about to finalize the edits and give an explanation but you prevented me from doing so. You didn't gave me the time for that, by reverting any edits done by me, almost immediately, in about within less than 2-3 minutes. That wasn't enough time for me to make carefully these improvements to the page, which I did one-by-one for better control of what is edited. But yes, still I should have explained right away why I reverted your reverts right on the moment the revert-of-revert was applied to the page. --SilentResident (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Historiographical term vs real name[edit]

Fuck it, I'm sick and tired of you. When will you finally learn to bloody fucking first go to a talkpage and make an effort to understand people's objections before you start revert-warring? How often has this happened now? How often have I had to explain something twice or three times to you before you finally got it, while you kept reverting all the time? Fut.Perf. 08:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear FutPerfect, please be polite with me. You have no right to talk to me like this. Wikipedia does not belongs to you. It is a site where all people can contribute for the best information of the people and for the best possible readability. If your goal is to prevent the others from doing their improvements in the pages, then I am afraid, you are not understanding the basic principle behind Wikipedia's existence and evolvement to what today is the world's leading source for knowledge. I have already explained that my edits in the page of the Byzantine Empire, are in full accordance with what was done in all other pages. I am just lining up the material, by prioritizing the naming info of a State. I fail to understand how this is insulting to you, and why you take it in a very personal way. Please, next time you decide to talk in my talk page, be sure to show some more respect and appreciation for the fact that I, like most people here, are doing their best for the other people to use Wikipedia as a gateway for more knowledge and information. --SilentResident (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I actually will talk to you like this, because you made me angry, and I want you to sense how angry I am with you, so that you will understand that you are making people angry with the way you behave and have a chance to rectify your behaviour in the future. The problem is not your own explaining or not explaining your edits, it is that you consistently fail to understand the explanations I give you for mine, and that you consistently fail to take the time to understand them before you revert. Do you know the simple English words before and after? Then learn this: when there are objections against your edits, then you first go to the talkpage and make sure you at least understand why people are objecting to them, and then you can restore your edit if necessary. Simple, isn't it?
Now, in this instance, you have tried out three different ways of integrating "Roman Empire" in that first sentence. First [2] you called it an "official" name. Problem is, it wasn't an official name; there was no such thing as "official names" of states back then, and certainly not an "offical name" of the Byzantine Empire in English, a language of whose existence the Byzantines had no idea. Then [3] you introduced it with "more specifically"; problem is that "Roman Empire" isn't actually "more specific" then "Byzantine Empire" (look up what "specific" means). Then [4] you modified it by calling it "Late Roman Empire"; problem with that is that it isn't actually called that; in historiography, the term "Late Roman" conventionally refers to somewhere between the 4th to 6th centuries or thereabouts. So each of your three attempts so far have been plain, factually wrong.
As for your perceived need to get the alternative names into the lead sentence somehow, the only argument for doing that you have proposed is that other articles are doing it too. That, in principle, is a very poor argument on Wikipedia – there are lots of crappy articles on this project and crappy habits that have been entrenched through unthinking convention, and the habit of overloading lead sentences with naming details in brackets, taking up loads of valuable space before even getting to the gist of the defining sentence, is undoubtedly one such very bad habit. It makes lead sentences difficult to read and keeps the reader's attention away from the really important things, i.e. the definition that comes after the "was". Just because many other articles are doing it wrong is not a good reason to do it here too; in fact, we should be proud of having kept this one article clean of the bad habit. Alternative names, unless they are very few and can be handled with extreme brevity, are best handled where they are properly contextualized and explained, and the place we were doing it here was just fine. Your three failed attempts at explaining and contextualizing them properly in the first sentence just go to demonstrate that it is not conveniently possible with the required brevity there. Fut.Perf. 09:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me be clear: your argument of using only a historiographical term (aka Byzantine Empire) (its a scientific/historical term, not its actual name) in the expense of the real name (Roman Empire) the state used in all of its official diplomatic contacts with foreign states, and the very name the citizens used to call their state with, to be in the top of the article, is indeed a very poor argument. Really, I fail to understand how do you find it logical to have the native/real/conventional/official name for that state be moved to sentences or bottom of paragraphs, instead of the article's top? Can you present me any other Wiki pages where a state has only its post-realm historiographical term be of top priority, at the beginning, and its real name be of secondary priority, lost in paragraphs and such? You wont. Even, for example, the article of the Holy See has this: the official/conventional name Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) instead of the more "common" term Vatican City, despite everybody today calling it with the name Vatican. Because Holy See is the official name of that state (or conventional in case of Medieval era's states) in the top of its page. Please... Seriously now... A state's real name should be on the top of the article... --SilentResident (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Byzantine Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)