User talk:Resnjari

Welcome!

Hello, Resnjari, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Thanks

Thanks, Resnjari! If/when you do it, please let me know :) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Before I list what I need translated, what is the language you will be translating the articles into? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• If it's Albanian, I need Peel District School Board translated into Albanian - Its Albanian website is at http://www.peelschools.org/albanian/home/ - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Again, thank you! It's interesting that the Macedonian ministry had a website in Albanian WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know :) - Have fun with your studies! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

re Greek Muslims RM

Resnjari, the RM was open for over 30 days which 4X the normal time such processes are designed for. When I relisted the move after its first week, I specifically notified several Wikiprojects to increase participation. It remained open for three more weeks. When I closed it, I drew my conclusion from the totality of the discussion. I understand you disagree with the conclusion. However, if you feel the RM was closed prematurely or improperly, WP has a process called Wikipedia:Move review that can address those concerns. I would suggest you use that process if indeed you feel the close was improper or premature. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Source interpretation

Hello,

I discovered one source misinterpretation of yours. With this edit diff you added estimations of the number of Muslim (including Albanians) refugees from Serbia. You explained that Stefanović and Jagodić estimated that number was 71, 000 Muslims with 49, 000 being Albanian. After this assertion you stated that:

• due to incomplete statistics of that era regarding certain districts, Jagodić states that the numbers of Albanians and Muslims that left Serbia was “much larger”

The source you used does not support your assertion here. Here is complete "much larger" sentence from the source (Jagodić):

• As far as I know, there is only one anticipation about the number of refugees and it is accepted in the Serbian historiography. J. Cvijić suggested that there were about 30 000 Albanian refugees. I believe that the number of Albanians and Muslims in general, who emigrated from the new counties of Serbia, was much larger.

Then Jagodić extensively research this number and concludes in the "Conclusion" section:

• The opinion that 30 000 Albanians emigrated from Serbia, has remained unquestioned for almost a century. That number was bigger : 49 000 out of, at least, 71 000 emigrated Muslims.

It is obvious that "much larger" expression was used to refer to number of 30,000, not to 49,000 like you wrote. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Error made late at night? At 14:47? Your last POV pushing attempt (diff) which includes giving undue weight to irrelevant Albanian nationalistic mythology about autochtonous Illyrians does not leave much space for assumption of good faith. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You are caught red handed here and your overly long comments can not disguise your "late at night" source misinterpretations. Albanian nationalist mythology of victimized autochtonous Illyrians is irrelevant for 1876-1878 events. This edit of yours (diff) removed referenced assertion with false explanation. Please don't continue with source misinterpretations and cherry picking. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are highly problematic. Your "late at night" excuse failed. To make things worse, your comments are too long and problematic edits are on massive scale which makes any attempt to deal with issues you create more difficult. For every resolved issues you swiftly create more new issues with your source misinterpretations, cherry picking and original research. All pushing Albanian nationalistic Illyrin authochtonous victimisation mythology, even to articles completely unrelated to it. Original research and source misinterpretation is also on massive scale. Take for example your addition of 1992 work as source for your "current day Serbian historians" (diff). Jagodic explains that Albanian began populating region in question in second half of the 18th century to present background of the events. That information is unquestioned by scholars. Whether Albanians descend from one ancient Illyrian tribe from norther Albanian mountains is irrelevant for 1876 events. You extensively use Jagodic when it suits your point of view, avoiding to present assertions that do not. That is cherry picking.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

After your failure with "late at night" excuse, you unjustifiedly accused me for personal attack (diff) althogh I always clearly referred to your edits. Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy says: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." Please be so kind not to continue with violation of this wikipedia policy in future.

Instead to gain consensus for your position, you opted for violation of multiple wikipedia policies (wp:brd, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Editing policy....) and edit warred (diff1, diff2 and diff3) to insert irrelevant ancient Albanian-Illyrian hipothesis to 1876-1878 events. No doubt you know it is disruptive and wrong. You are here to push Greater Albanian nationalistic Illyrian authochtonous victimisation mythology, not to build an encyclopedia. I don't intend to participate in your edit wars, nor I have intention to lose more of my time to deal with your massive problematic edits and gaming the system. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be somehow obliged to keep discussing with you for as long as you are dissatisfied. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

With this edit (diff) you continued with your source misinterpretations:

• The source discuss presence of ancient Dacians and Illyrians in Morava valley
• The text you added say: "Romanians and Albanians lived in close proximity at one time during the early medieval period in the area of the Morava valley"

The source you used actually directly refutes your position and explains that Albanian-Illyrian connection is controversial hypothesis "important in Albanian nation building myths". That way the source additionally proves that I was right when I wrote that you are here to push Greater Albanian nationalistic Illyrian authochtonous victimisation mythology (completely irrelevant for 1876 events), not to build an encyclopedia. Your removal of "may have" term (disguised with false explanation in the edit line diff) is blatant violation of Wikipedia:Honesty aimed to additionally misinterpret already heavily misinterpreted source. Your disruptive actions connected with Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and your comments in which you try to imply ethnicity based motives to my editing (I hope this is not because i am of Albanian heritage) made editing unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing of this article. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment this will be my last comment in this article which will be removed from my watchlist. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I already explained you that your editing discouraged me from further editing of Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article. I am not even watching it. Therefore my edits as reaction on your comments are not expected. Please be so kind not to clog my talkpage with the Greater Albanian nationalistic Illyrian authochtonous victimisation mythology based on blatant source misinterpretations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I would kindly ask you to refrain from your irrelevance in the article. The section is about Ottoman Albanians in the Sanjak of Niš, a community which has its origin in the 18th century. It is not suitable for a proto-Albanian/proto-Romanian theory.--Zoupan 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Ottoman Albanians (and Persecution of Ottoman Muslims) and a theory about proto-Albanian/proto-Romanian contact zone are two different things. Your synthesis is clear also from the fact that you inserted a source which has nothing to do with the events or even Ottoman history. Origin of Albanians is a suitable article for views about ethnogenesis, and not Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. I think Antidiskriminator's explanations of your behaviour are enough to see what your intentions are. None of your copy-pasted policy outtakes actually relates to this issue. Your edit is biased.--Zoupan 18:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an origin theory of Proto-Albanians. Please understand that I am not against any theories with scholarly backing in the suitable article, but the inclusion of it in the article about Persecution of Muslims. From what I understand, those Albanians hail (and claim heritage) from northern Albanian tribes (fisët), who were originally Catholic, and not Orthodox (which they would have been if they indeed inhabited the Morava valley continuously).--Zoupan 17:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkpage hint

I believe the creation of subsections in case a discussion becomes too huge can be helpful for the co-editors, especially when it includes several proposals more than 60k in total.Alexikoua (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Give me your idea about these

Can you please give me an idea about these? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites&action=history

this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arvanites#Total_number_of_Arvanites.

and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cham_Albanians&action=history Thank you Rolandi+ (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you.

Ch. Albanians

Hi Resnjari, Sincerely thank you for your help.However Omari referes to current official Albanian speakers to Thesprotia,not to ethnic Albanians in Thesprotia. Rolandi+ (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the help + sources for population figures

Dear Resnjari, thank you very much for your help in the page about Albanians and for the sources. Your help is highly appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can help with. Have a good day :) --SilentResident (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Epirus edits

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Northern Epirus. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, that is subject to your interpretation. Stop resorting always to accusations or being selective with Wikipedia policy. My material in whole is peer reviewed and the proposed edits have been languishing in the talk page for many, many weeks after i asked repeatedly for input in good faith. I waited and now I went by the policy: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Everything i do is by the policy and in good faith and finally a real discussion has begun on the talk page. However stick to the content and don't resort to personal attacks.Resnjari (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

undue weight is something different than wp:rs: Even the addition of the best reliable & peer reviewed material can be considered wp:undue if the article doesn't exactly deal with the subject. For example a detailed history of Albanian pejorative terminology in an article named Northern Epirus "is" undue. Moreover if you deal exclusively with the Muslim related pejorative terminology there is both undue and pov. In general not everything that's wp:rs can be added everywhere.Alexikoua (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, in the article it states that Albanian Muslims due to the Millet system where known as "Turks". In the nineteenth century the word Turk as a whole, not just for Albanian Muslims in Southern Albania or Northern Epirus but those as a Balkan whole, the word Turk acquired a additional meaning to the millet one, a pejorative meaning from the mid and definitely from the late nineteenth century onward. It is not undue especially since Nitsiakos notes its current day usage amongst Greeks, Vlachs and especially Orthodox Albanians regarding its use toward Muslim Albanians in the area. Nitsiakos also notes the use of the word Kaur in current times by Muslim Albanians toward any Christian in Southern Albania. Because in a "Northern Epirus" context he does not state it is used pejoratively, now i am specifically going to not write in the article that because it is not stated. I know very well its pejorative and as such i am going to use other peer reviewed material which covers the word in a more generalised context to cite that fact. The reader must be made aware of that. Wikipedia does not promote racism. The peer reviewed material states when in reference to the word Turk acquiring pejorative meanings for Muslims Albanians in the nineteenth century, refers to all Muslim Albanians living the Ottoman Empire of which Southern Albania (or Northern Eprius) was a part. Maybe the sentence needs to be rewritten, however the additional meaning must be given as Wikipedia does not promote racism. It is nothing about undue weight or POV. On this point don't be difficult. I have more than enough peer reviewed sources that a third party deliberation can have a look at and will argue my case very strongly if i make a complaint. I rather not do that. Please take into consideration these matters. An additional sentance of some kind must be added alongside the word "Turk" regarding Albanian Muslims. Otherwise its POV pushing already.Resnjari (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Source falsification

Please explain why here [1] you omitted several crucial aspects from the source, namely that both Greek and Orthodox Albanians fled, and that they espoused a Greek national consciousness before leaving. There had better be an excellent justification for this, otherwise this is source falsification, which is becoming very tiresome and needs to stop immediately. Athenean (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, do you see me saying no to adding the Greek aspect to it. No. Did i not say in the talk page to assist in the edits. All you said was not to anything. My peer reviewed edits were languishing. You want to add Greeks and alos fleeing the regime to the bit about Orthodox Albanians fleeing and going to Greece by all means. But the bit about Orthodox Albanians and them espousing a Greek national consciousness is important as it shows what their views regarding themselves and identity was at that point in time from the region. The justification is more than there. This goes against the usual Albanian Rilindja falsehood that Orthodox Albanians had an Albanian consciousness. I have said this many times, i don't do nationalism.Resnjari (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Koleka

I appreciate your initiative to handle the situation with Burrit. However, the way you focused on this might had triggerred a more hardcore approach by him. Suggesting a general wp:HISTRS approach would be fine. However, material such as declarations of specific parties etc can be hardly considered neutral. I'm not against a version which sugests X claims A and Y claims B, but the alternative claim needs to be supported too by serious reference.Alexikoua (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I accept most of your reasoning and i have also said the same thing, if one read my comments in full. However i have not made him pursue a hardcore approach. That is his initiative. I have said repeatedly in my comments that peer reviewed sources (Albanian) that are post 1992 should be used to refute Pettifer beyond doubt. I said to the Albanian editors that they must seek them out and present them and only then can the matter be dealt with within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Anyway material about the communist era is only now starting ( to be written in Albania due to its societal trauma) and this issue about Koleka may take a few years from now to be revisited here on Wikipedia with appropriate sources. What is important though at this point in time is that there is serious doubt based not on some 'national agenda' basis, but on factual grounds regarding Pettifer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose content must be based on good and solid scholarship. Otherwise anything would go up (as i latter checked after we did the edits on the Cham Albanians page for where the Nazi claim regarding the Chams came from -it was from a Carl Savich article on Serbianna.com ! Dodgy things like cannot stand) I can do no further for Burridheut apart from what i have said. He can either do as Rolandi did and take my advice and desist in that behavior or continue with all that that entails (consequences etc). In the end i am just one editor amongst many and everyone is responsible for their own behavior.Resnjari (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Map

I was cheking this map [[2]], but unfortunately can't find something that supports its use that time. I do not doubt that this kind of symbols were well known among Albanians, but the specific map still lacks a decent citation.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ok. The citation is within the Flag of Albania article from which these various Albanian flags used on wikipedia are based. The website used is one that deals with historical flags and current day ones and has been extensively used throughout wikipedia. I'll remove the League of Prizren bit as there is no citation for its use back then. Nonetheless, the Catholics up north were using banners to that one and Isa Boletin as well in the 1900s during their uprisings against Ottoman rule. I have also added in more more Elsie's book regarding use of the Albanian flag regarding its use in Albanian uprisings during this era on the Albania flag page. Resnjari (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Kosovo Albanians

An article that you have been involved in editing—Kosovo Albanians —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. T*U (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Novšiće

Keep an eye on the Battle of Novšiće article. There is this guy Denis who considers himself a Bosnian and trying to twirl the article as a mini Bosnian-Montenegrin clash out of the League of Prizren context, remove any implication of the League of Prizren an possibly the word "Albanian" out of it, and even phrasing things as "Bosnian leader Ali Pasha of Gusinje". Incredible, like there are not enough problems in the neighborhood, now we have to deal with the Bosnian nationalism. I reverted the article to one of your previous edits before he started messing it up.Mondiad (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Resnjari.
Just wanted to let you know that the User:DenisGusinje has been reported to the Arbitration Board for his latest disruptive editing in the articles Battle of Novšiće, Ali Pasha of Gusinje, and Rexho Mulliqi.

The link is: [3].

Thanks and regards.Mondiad (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosova me unesco

o shqipe a keni me ndru emrat ne unesco per kosoven??? Internationel00 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to that. The decision for Kosovo being admitted into UNESCO is fresh, it will be updatied over the following days anyway. News outlets are reporting on it as we speak so it has to enter the public forum. Probably best non-Albanian editors does the change to that. Give it a week. If its not changed then there will be the UNESCO source itself for it to do a change.Resnjari (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I followed up on that. They got through the first round. In Novemeber, they will have a final vote. Actually its best it gets changed when that occurs so there can be no doubt and no edit warring headaches. At the moment refrain from doing any changes. Its only a few weeks anyway.Resnjari (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tripolitsa edits

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Siege of Tripolitsa, you may be blocked from editing. Alexikoua (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Again its your opinion based on what you have interpreted to be original reaserch. There are articles which i will invoke that i have come across edited by you that constitute that. So if you want to follow this up Alexikoua with the following forums go ahead. I prefer outside oversight and am an advocate for it. You will need to produce evidence for that, extensive evidence. Looking forward to it.Resnjari (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The initiative of Kolokotronis had a good reason, since it was part of a wider Greek-Albanian alliance. That time Ali-Pasha was fighting in Epirus the same enemy and in fact this alliance lasted for a couple of months. It might be a good start for a new article.Alexikoua (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. At the moment though, one question ? Do you have a title page in mind ? I ask because its best that gets conceived and resolved at the outset otherwise people might do the title this of title that thing and create unnecessary and time wasting blabber. Yeah i have thought about something like that. Some stuff on the Albanian Muslim Lala population would be part of it due to their on and of again relationship with Kolokotronis.

October 2015

Your recent editing history 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 get 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.

You are edit-warring across multiple articles. Please stop. I suggest you take a step back otherwise I will seek arbitration enforcement. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do seek arbitration, as i have outlined to you and to others the concerns involved. Your reply used to undo the tags i placed about the "the skies being blue" so we don't need a source does not suffice regarding the Chameria article. If you feel that this needs to go to arrbitration, i say you should proceed with it. Like i said i am very much in favour of outside intervention and will make my case accordingly. And also for the Tripoltisa article too. Skies are blue comment by the way is Wikipedia:No original research. Resnjari (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems you have never heard of WP:BLUESKY. One more rv at either article and you will have breached 3rr. You seem very agitated by the recent arbitration enforcement request against Burridheut. I suggest you take a step back and calm down, edit-warring will get you nowhere. Athenean (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Athenean i have outlined my concerns. If you remove those tags, then we will need third party adjudication. I have outlined my reason accordingly. You have not. You have also engaged in multiple reverts without giving proper explanation and also not taking into consideration my concerns or addressing them in good faith. As the blue sky policy states: Article content should be backed up by reliable sources wherever needed to show that the presentation of material on Wikipedia is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse or the world at large. Unless you do that then my tags stand. Please provide evidence. If this goes to arbitration i will make my case accordingly. I did not mention Burridheut by the way. Also i have said to you multiple times to refrain from making commentary about my person. You have done so in the past about my cognitive faculties and now your "agitated" comment is once again following that trajectory. Do not assume what how people feel and that is offensive. Stick to the issues. So like i said what does Burridheut's case have to do with what we are discussing ? I discussed Burridheut's situation at the arbitration committee. Don't conflate situations like your failed attempt at sanctioning me at Burridheut.Resnjari (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Athenean I advise you to stop harassing editors here in wikipedia like you are doing with Resnjari. Also avoid mentioning my name in vain, it does not really elevate your status. Your battleground attitude and your multiple reverts across multiple articles can result in you being blocked from editing, so please be more considerate towards others and aim at consensus with other editors. Burridheut (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah Burridheut, don't worry about it. Thanks though for the thought. As for him citing your name in a discussion that had nothing to do with you, it was unqualified and uncalled for. He should refrain from that considering his experience.Resnjari (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, the prohibition from saying someone's name in vain only applies to The Lord. C'mon, lighten up a little :) Athenean (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unlike some editors i am not into personal attacks. I prefer good faith and to let my peer reviewed sources and accompanying edits do the talking. I like to do things by the book. :)Resnjari (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I know you like to think yourself as very high-minded and above personal attacks (and how you constantly brag about that, always reminding everyone all the time that you are supposedly above personal attacks), but in fact it seems many of your recent comments are in fact loaded with personal attacks, particularly against me. For example this here [4] is very much a personal attack directed against me. Just because you don't have the guts to mention my name (or maybe you think you are being clever that way), doesn't make it any less of a personal attack. So instead of always lecturing and patronizing others about their behavior, maybe it's time you did some self-reflection and worked on your own behavior first. Unless of course you are one of those people who is always right and perfect and everything is always someone else's fault. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You attempted a sanction against me at someone else arbitration hearing based on "nationalist Albanian POV" without evidence. I am not being "patronising". You have repeatedly done that to me many times instead of discussing the sources. I cited many issues with certain articles and all you do is say no for that sake of no. I don't understand this. If you think a source is problematic or that the way i went about it is an issue point it out according to policy and no 5 second soundbites. There have been disputes with me and Alexikoua, sometimes he has made me rethink something sometimes its the other way around. It gets a little testy at times but we have come out of of those discussions better informed and those articles are of better quality without having POV accusations floating all over the place. I ask what has your contribution been apart from no and so on? And if you say that i have not gone about it in good faith, i ask you to find any other editors who have put up proposals to a article (like i have in Northern Epirus) and seeking advice and counsel instead of going in head long and making the edits as per the policy on being bold and stuff. Be constructive that's all i have asked of you. If you have sources bring them to the table. I am not against that. Don't worry about my cognitive faculties, about my personal bodily state or whatever. If you continue with certain comments, then yes i will point them out because that is not on. I am a forgiving person and i turn the other cheek and i rather you be constructive. That's what wikipedia is about. And also about that nationalist Albanian POV stuff, in case you have not noticed, i use mainly Greek scholarship when i do my edits, i barely use Albanian ones. Unless you can prove that those Greek scholars are somehow "Albanian nationalists", please leave your personal views out of the editing process. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please translate this

Would be so honest as to please translate this [5]? Athenean (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Upper Reka

Thank you for building the article of Upper Reka. That information is NOWHERE to be found, but in the English wiki and thanks to YOU! Perhaps we can exchange emails? MorenaReka (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)