User talk:Skylax30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:13, 16 June 2018

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Skylax30. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0ctober 14, 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about the article Souliotes.

Souliotes

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. 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.

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. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop those threatening-looking messages please? I am one of the editors and I am supposed to be part of the "concensus", if there is any. Of course I discuss everything. Go now to the discussion and explain please, what's the relation between Zagori and Souliotes. Thanks.

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greek National Awakening, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek. 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) 09:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

αναφορά

Τον Μάιο, πρόσθέσες αυτή την αναφορά στο άρθρο Θεσσαλονίκη:

Α.Ι. Θαβώρης, "Θεσσαλονίκη - Σαλονίκη. Η ιστορία του ονόματος της πόλης", στο "Η Θεσσαλονίκη", Κέντρο Ιστορίας Θεσσαλονίκης, Δήμος Θεσσ/νίκης, 1985, σ. 5-21.

Δεν έχω καταφέρει να βρω αντίγραφο. Μύπως θα μπορούσες να μου στείλεις κόπια; macrakis@gmail.com --Macrakis (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ΟΚ. Νομίζω πως θυμάμαι πού βρήκα αυτό το βιβλίο. Βρίσκεσαι στη Βρετανία;--Skylax30 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Τα έλαβες;--Skylax30 (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Skylax30. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ——Chalk19 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Panayiotis Diamadis. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Your addition to Battle of Broken Hill has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bahudhara (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

noticeboard of discussion

There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding pers attack. The thread is [[noticeboard of discussion#User:Skylax30|User:Skylax30]]. The discussion is about the topic User:Skylax30. [1] Τζερόνυμο (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Swarm ♠ 23:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swarm, is it a common practice in WP to block someone for unclear reasons, such as "personal attacks" without links to the event(s), and for a non-defined period? Thanks for the answers. I would have some questions for possible personal communications of the admin with certain users of greek WP, but these are probably confidential.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking your block log [2], you were blocked for 48 hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Beyond My Ken.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly don't know why you were blocked, then there's a serious competence issue for which you will most likely end up blocked indefinitely. It should be extremely obvious that you were blocked pursuant to the ANI report for personal attacks. The links were provided there, and petty procedural objections such as me not providing you links are not valid, as you were aware of the report. Also, I know full well that your block log shows up when you try to edit while blocked, so you had the information as to when the block would expire. It's either completely disingenuous or completely incompetent to claim that you did not know how long the block was, because that information is always available even if we don't include it in the blocking template. Swarm ♠ 18:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Your recent editing history at Turkish Cypriots shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. 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.

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. Moxy (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message User talk:Moxy. I was the one who added the sourced text that Tzeronymo is deleting. I suppose you checked the sources. Discussion and concensus is always welcomed, provided that there is good faith on both parties. Anfortunatelly, this is not the case with Tzeronymo. First he asked for "back-up" by sending message to a turkish-speaking user, and after they congratulated each-other for the "good job" [3], Tzeronymo was claiming that his position is a "concensus" and, therefore, he can constantly delete the text. The assisting user is supporting his opinion by citing an irrelevant article in an obscure turkish-cypriot blog, plus some personal unintelligible arguments. I believe you are an old user, and you know that we don't need concensus to expand an article with a text that is very relevant and well-sourced with academic sources. Otherwise, the articles could be written after voting. If however, the Tzeronymo's part is insisting that this text should not be in the article, THEY have to take the case to Disp. Resolution. --Skylax30 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello, I'm Jingiby. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will explain in the discussion. Symmetrically, if someone wants to include this content, he is expected to explain the reason. Thanks. --Skylax30 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

Mporeis na apeuthinthis stoys stewards tis wikipedia an theoris ypervoliki i adiki tin fragi stin elwiki, yparxei kai to globalcommunity tis wiki episis an thelis na thesis tetoia zitimata, h elkoinotita den einai i anoteri arxi, ostoso prepei na stirixis tin thesi soy me epixeirimata, oi prosvoles poy eipes den tha se voithisoyn alla nomizo oti h epivoli tis fragis 3 minon os ekdikitiki gia tin sigkekrimeni periptosi kai i omadiki stoxopoiisi apo xristes poy xrisimopoioyn analogoys xaraktirismoys mporei na apodeixtei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4F9:2A:166B:2:0:0:3 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Efcharisto, alla den kaigomai na grapso stin ellinikh WP. --Skylax30 (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Άλλωστε, όπου κι αν πας η Ελλάδα σε πληγώνει [4].--Skylax30 (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reported here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Arvanites (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Arvanites (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FITINDIA 12:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Souliotes and Arvanites

Souliotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Arvanites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You've been reported for edit warring at WP:AN3. Can you reply and explain why you should not be blocked? I also notice you are currently blocked on the Greek Wikipedia. Any offer to negotiate, or proposals to use WP:DRN or WP:RFC would be welcome. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston. I suppose I can explain here, no? Actually I didn't understand that I violated the 3RR. If it is true, it happened while I was adding text and sources in the article while others kept on deleting. To be honest, I don't quite understand how this rule works. However, if I really violated the rule, I will not waste anybody's time with excuses. Formalities aside, the point is that 3 or 4 users are protecting a particular (pro-Albanian) POV in the article and prevent its development. As far as the Greek WP case, I was blocked for 3 months, which is a far too long block, for allegedly "annoying" a user, and on accusations that are obviously wrong for anyone who can read Greek. I complained to the administrator, and he did not reply. I don't want to bother you with more explanations, but the "hot" topic was that a typical leftist polemic language and insults against the Church was included in an article, and the "sources" were a user's interpretation of certain leftist sites. I expressed my opinion that I was blocked for political reasons, and nobody bothered to reply or to see the case. Do you mean that I can use WP:RFC or DRN for the case of the Greek WP?--Skylax30 (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Though I haven't examined the 3rr issue, I don't find this summary of the dispute by Skylax to be accurate, having been tangentially involved myself. He is right that this is a Greek-Albanian issue. However, on those two pages I saw Skylax reverted by at least 6 users (myself, Resnj., Ktrimi, Tzeronimo, Jingiby and Fut Perfect). While an uncharitable view seen above might accuse all six of "protecting" some Albanist POV, the fact is that Skylax added WP:SYNTH using sources that didn't appear to mention Souliotes, the article topic. Well if he is willing to srv, abide by rules including avoiding and assume good faith, I hope he will do so, in the spirit of cooperation. Its not impossible that he could in the future make useful contributions to the topic areas of Souliotes and Arvanites, but the behaviors that led to this need to change.---- Calthinus (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skylax30. You've been warned per the result of the AN3 complaint. You may be blocked if you make any further reverts about people of Albanian descent (such as Souliotes and Arvanites) unless you have received a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. Consider using the standard methods of dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning EdJohnston. I didn't know the policy of Discr. Santions. However, in the relevant page [5] it says "Pages relating to the Balkans (Macedonia)". Does it include all the Balkans (and Greece of course), or just Macedonia? If it means all the Balkans, I propose that all other users involved in the Arvanites and Souliotes articles, should be warned. The policy is not unidirectional, I suppose. If this is the case, to my understanding, they should not do reverts about Greeks without consensus . I am not expecting you to answer this question, as I bothered you enough already. I will see where can I brink this question. Cheers.--Skylax30 (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ARBMAC, "Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." As regards notifying others, you are the one who is in trouble and WP:DR gives good advice. Another admin might have just gone ahead and blocked you without further ado, instead of issuing a warning. I did not notice anyone else whose warlike behavior put them at risk of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have ignored my warning by going ahead with an edit about the Souliotes, even though in another article. Please explain why I shouldn't go ahead with a block of your account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylax30: regarding your question on NeilN's talk page: the Ds Alert that NeilN left you here already contains a link with the answers to your questions. To repeat: that decision is here. Quoting from it: The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted. For the context of that statement, see section #Findings of fact. I hope that answers your question. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was great. Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 Thanks for the warning [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]]. I didn't know the policy of Discr. Santions. However, in the relevant page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications] it says "Pages relating to the Balkans (Macedonia)". Does it include all the Balkans (and Greece of course), or just Macedonia? If it means all the Balkans, I propose that all other users involved in the Arvanites and Souliotes articles, should be warned. The policy is not unidirectional, I suppose. If this is the case, to my understanding, they should not do reverts about  Greeks without consensus . I am not expecting you to answer this question, as I bothered you enough already. I will see where can I brink this question. Cheers.--[[User:Skylax30|Skylax30]] ([[User talk:Skylax30#top|talk]]) 05:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 :Per [[WP:ARBMAC]], "Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." As regards notifying others, you are the one who is in trouble and [[WP:DR]] gives good advice. Another admin might have just gone ahead and blocked you without further ado, instead of issuing a warning. I did not notice anyone else whose warlike behavior put them at risk of a block. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 13:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
+::It looks like you have ignored my warning by going ahead with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanian_Regiment_(France)&diff=846144320&oldid=846142520 an edit about the Souliotes], even though in another article. Please explain why I shouldn't go ahead with a block of your account. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 == Reminder ==