User talk:SilentResident

Precious

One year!

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 [[1]] 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: [2]. 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 [3], 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 [4]. 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 [5] 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[6] 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)