User talk:Balkanian`s word

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 2;

Arvanites-great primeries

[1] [2] [3] [4]

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Illyrians. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Balkanian`s word (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block was reasonable, but I just did not see that I was breaking 3RR. I do not intend to edit on Illyrians any more, so I request to be unblocked in good faith. Thank you!

Decline reason:

You've been blocked on numerous occasions in the past and I believe the block is a good one. I can't trust you to edit constructively on other articles with such a history. Perhaps after the block expires you can focus your attention on other articles and leave this one well alone. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I might be willing to consider unblocking you, but for the fact that you've been blocked for edit warring twice before. Aside from not editing this particular article further, how are you going to avoid further edit wars in the future? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually four times, as he's also been blocked twice under his old username Arditbido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Athenean (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will just avoid them. If I break 3RR again, you may block me for a month. In this case I just didn`t have the will to break 3RR, but didn`t count my edits and reverts. So, I am asking for good faith, if I break this good faith, than you may block me (as every administrator can). Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, thats what wiki is, people who do not bother to watch Special:Contributions, but only the Logs. With reasonings like this "Perhaps after the block expires you can focus your attention on other articles and leave this one well alone." its quite clear that administrators just decline unlock request on bad faith, without seeing if I was really "focusing" my attention on that page. Just to notice, that on my edits, Illyrians is less than 1% on the last week.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Chams

Hi Balkanian`s word I've indeed read Cham Albanians article and I am very concerned about it. The way it tells the story before and after the liberation is very limited almost POV since says absolutely nothing about the large scaled atrocities greek population suffered during the occupation which were not just greek propaganda, thus giving a falls impression for the postwar reaction of the Greek population over Chams. Giving only the half of a story is always the way to establish fanaticism and through this generating hot ethnic conflicts as we have seen here in Balkans a century now. I myself always trying to say the truth about the Albanian nation which is together with Greeks and Romanians the ancient nations of the Balkans. See by yourself in the causes of the 1st Balkan War. Anyway I would be happy to hear the points of your disagreement in my edits so to have an honest discussion about. --Factuarius (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You take it easy "man". ELME was not the only reference you have deleted. You just deleted everything. The source is not about ELME what I noted in my reference is the report of an official person about what happened there and, read careful before delete everything you don't like. Don't write me again I don't like your style. --Factuarius (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Να πας να τις βρείς, τύπους σαν εσένα δεν έχω την αφέλεια να προσπαθώ να τους πείσω για τίποτα. Όσο για το άρθρο για τους Τσαμουριώτες θα ασχοληθώ μαζί του όπως εγώ νομίζω. Μη μου ξαναγράψεις --Factuarius (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi balk, about Azis Tahir Ajdonati & Jakup Veseli, is there any English speaking book that mentions them? although they can be linked with the Cham article, i don't see I real notability, to mention them on a general basis.Alexikoua (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis you define 'official language' on a medieval state? I simply concluded that there were Greek-speaking people (in Arta), especially nobles in Arta's court (which means people with impact in the ruler's court) and the rulers agreed to accept Greek in part of the Despotate's everyday life (accepting a bishop directly from Constantinople, not all orthodox accepted religious control from there, like Bulgarians, Armenians).

Off course the rulers' first language was Albanian, but Greek seemed to be also widely used in secondary level. Alexikoua (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of one week for edit warring on multiple articles directly after the release of your block. To contest this block, please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{[[Template:There are only two edits per page, I did not take part on an edit war, but after the two edits I continiued discussing on Talk:Igoumenitsa, after I had fistly discussed on the user talk of the involved user. This is not edit warring, because I reverted only in good faith, and when I saw that the other POV had a different opinion, I stoped and discussed.|There are only two edits per page, I did not take part on an edit war, but after the two edits I continiued discussing on Talk:Igoumenitsa, after I had fistly discussed on the user talk of the involved user. This is not edit warring, because I reverted only in good faith, and when I saw that the other POV had a different opinion, I stoped and discussed.]]}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Despite various requests (cf. below), the blocking administrator failed to explain how exactly User:Balkanian`s word’s behaviour constituted edit warring. As this block is therefore not sufficiently founded (cf. [5]), the request for unblock is accepted.

Request handled by: — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Note to reviewing administrator: Please see this AN/I thread for a list of diffs that support a block for edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There are only 2 edits per page, and later when my edits were reverted, I did not go further, but discussed on the talk page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing request. — Aitias // discussion 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the information on WP:AN/I, I see 1 revert on Paramythia, Igoumenitsa, Parga, Margariti as well as on Himarë and 2 reverts on Andros — unless I'm missing something, none of those are anywhere near edit warring. Thus, I'm inclined to accept this request for unblock. I'll ask the blocking administrator to comment. — Aitias // discussion 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:EDITWAR: "edit warring is a behavior and a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time may not capture it: administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes." Tiptoety ^talk 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. I reverted some copy-paste passages, which now are under discuss, and for which is a consensus that do not fulfill WP:RS, as my reasoning when I reverted them. It is only one revert on multiple copy-pasted material in different pages.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am very well aware of that. Though, under such circumstances administrators are expected to explain explicitly how they did — using their judgment — determine that one was edit warring. The template-like block notice above is insufficient for this purpose. Therefore, please explain your judgment call in detail. Otherwise this block has to be considered insufficiently founded. — Aitias // discussion 19:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias, I don't want to sound rude, but please do not talk down to me. This is not my first day at the rodeo, I do not need to be told how to be an administrator. (Sorry Balkanian`s word for getting off topic). As I stated before, the diffs provided at AN/I and the block message stating edit warring are the reasons for the block. Balkanian`s word, if you agree to be more careful in regards to reverting I would be happy to unblock you. Tiptoety ^talk 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was neither “talking down” to you nor telling you “how to be an administrator” (I'm sorry if you felt it that way) ... What I was actually doing is reviewing this block, which is — at the current point of time — not well-founded. Also, I was asking you to give reasons and explain in detail how you did determine that Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs) was edit warring — unfortunately you did not. You just said “per the links provided on AN/I”, but, as I explained above, this is not sufficient to give reasons for the block, as those links do not constitute a clear-cut violation. Once again, I ask you to explain explicitly how you did — using your judgment — determine that User:Balkanian`s word was edit warring. If you again fail to do so, I will accept this unblock request due to a lack of reasoning. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 19:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this edit here [6] in Margariti, in which he re-added Jakup Veseli, even though this individual is non-notable and was removed by User:Alexikoua on June 2 and was not-readded by anyone. As such, it is a partial revert to this version [7]. Same goes for Paramythia, these two edits [8] [9], are partial reverts of this edit [10] by User:Alexikoua.

To Tiptotey: As I said, I just reverted them once or twice, so I do not think I was not careful. If I would be not careful, I would have reverted them for the third time, without breaking 3RR. But, I just did not wanted to get in an edit-war, and thus I stopped. How, can I be charged for edit-warring, at a time when I informed the User talk:Factiatus that he was vandalising, asked for third opinion from User talk:Cplakidas, User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User talk:Alexikoua, and started a discussion on Talk:Igoumenitsa, with an editor who insulted me (see above in greek), without reverting his edit anymore? His edit was still there, when he (finally) accepted to discuss with me and I did not revert it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, please see who was the editor who reported me. See his contributions, where he has *only* reverts and see my contributions too. Who is the one who reverts, and who is the one who contributes.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Tiptoety might consider unblocking User:Balkanian`s word if he would accept an editing restriction. I suggest a WP:0RR on all the articles subject to WP:ARBMAC. What this means in practice is that he could add brand-new material, but would not be able to remove any existing language from articles, or undo any past edit by another editor. So to be safe he'd want to limit himself to the Talk pages of those articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite intresting, if I could only new who is removing material on those pages? Maybe you should see who is the one who is bringing always fresh material and who is the one who takes them out. As I said before, you may see who is the reverter and who is the contributor. For example, can you explain me why there is such a dispute on Andros page, where I added a name on the lead, according to WP:NCGN, and without any reasoning User:Athenean keeps torning it out? Who is the one who is bringig fresh things on those pages? Nevertheless, you may do whatever you wish, but you should know that I did not break any rule and that the reasons for which I reverted it *once* are accepted in Talk:Igoumenitsa as the base of the consensus.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw the disc. page in Igoumenitsa, I agree creating a trimmed version of 2 max 3 sentences (unless there happened something specific in the town), because the articles are relatively small anyway.Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside comment, because I was asked for comment by B.w. earlier, I'm a bit in two minds about this block. On the one hand, I'm very well aware B.w. has a rather long history of sometimes rather stubborn edit-warring. On the other hand, in this particular instance, his conduct was definitely a good deal better than that of the other side. Factuarius (talk · contribs) has been behaving a lot worse: both in terms of reverting (3RR violation at least here: [11], [12], [13], [14]), constructiveness in talkpage discussion, civility (this was rather insulting), and, most importantly, in terms of tendentiousness of the edits. Even if some admins don't like to hear that, there are in fact edits that are so rabidly tendentious that reverting them is the only option, and this was one of them (even if the version reverted to also had its problems.) I would normally not hold two reverts of such an edit against any editor, with a history of edit-warring or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have this [15] and this [16] similar IP addresses editing in the same articles. 85.74.80.100 reverted in Paramythia, Margariti, Parga, and Igoumenitsa (not that I disagree with the edits, btw), while 85.74.86.183 undid [17] my edit in Andros. Sheer coincidence? I have a good mind to request a checkuser. --Athenean (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrrmmpfh. Balkanian's word, this had better not be you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Balkanian`s word: Are those IP addresses yours? — Aitias // discussion 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balkanian`s word. — Aitias // discussion 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness of this thread, note that the SPI case closed with a checkuser finding that the two IPs were unrelated to Balkanian`s word. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was mainly the adoption of the Byzantine lifestyle, it was also the see of a bishop appointed by Constantinople, which means that the Albanian rulers accepted orthodox rituals in Greek language. Most important in page 138 says: "unfortunately we cannot identify the nationality of the archons... they were probably mixed". Also it mentions that there was a Greek community in the city, and Tocco was seeking help by them to capture the city. What do you believe?Alexikoua (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean, the courts of nobles were the administrative centers in medieval europe, see: Noble court #Medieval Europe, and they were probably both Greeks and Albanians (named archons here). I agree what you say about orthodox Albanians, a number sources claim that they were mostly bilingual (know Greek as second language) and that's reasonable if u hear a language too often (kind of lingua franca).Alexikoua (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, on pg 138 "We cannot identify the nationality of the archons or the population. Probably they were both ethnically mixed."Alexikoua (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure, but on the other hand there were no written accounts in Albanian that period, so it had to rely on a different language. It seems more than obvious, in which language you believe the official correspondence was written in the D. of Arta? Unless it weren't hunic hordes they must have had a language to write down (it was 14th cent. no antiquity).

We know for sure that Greek was official in religion and it was probably partly used in administration (according to the archons ethnicity). To conclude 'possible' does not mean 'noway', just possible.

Not to mention that the Despot Vango (or Bogoi) was a 'multinational' according to medieval Greek sources. Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll specify the use of Greek, as the book says.Alexikoua (talk)

What's your real problem on that? this is written on this book and that's what i add. Or u didn't like what it writes? If u find something that opposes that feel free.Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mbledhje do ta organizojme tek faqja jote :)

Ore si do bashkohemi ne e te vendosim se si do veprojmë? Po ftoj edhe disa te tjere ne faqen tende.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me gjithe qejf. Na duhet pak organizim.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ftova Sarandiotin dhe Aigestin, ne faqen tende.Derisa e ke bllokimin? Don't give them reasons se ate duan plehrat.Ai Athenean besoj se e mban mend me Tsourkpk, po i njejti mut eshte.Hajde se flasim,--Taulant23 (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vellezer, do flasim me lirshem ne msn. Balkanian ti e di msn-in tim, dhe kemi bashkepunuar. Taulant/Aigest me dergo msn-in tend me email(e kam te hapur si zgjidhje ne userpage) dhe flasim atje te tere. Ketu na shikojne. Bllokimi i Balkanian mbaroi(24 ore ishte) --Sarandioti (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok me mire keshtu.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Une nuk kam adres msn, ne punen qe bej nuk me lejohet msn, zakonisht perdor gmailin sepse ai nuk ka nevoje per progr chati, keshtu kur jam ne pune 8-5 jam online ose pasdite po ashtu te hap nje adrese msn me thoni. Aigest (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hidhi nje sy kesaj harte.[18]

--Taulant23 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harta ishte ok po ety jane futur dhe epirotet, tek artikulli Illyrian language talk page kam paraqitur ne nje link nje harte te sakte per Ilirine e jugut te hartuar nga Hammond ajo eshte me e sakte dhe me shtrirjen e fiseve ilire. Ne mund te vendosim dhe epirotet sifise pa u ngacmuar me idene ilire pavarsisht se disa i mbajne per ilire eshte mire te mos konfronohemi kot me mire i paraqesim si fise epirote, ne fund te fundit harta eshte per tribes dhe jo ethnos. Aigest (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems also ok to me, thanx for collaboratingAlexikoua (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes googlebooks sucks a little. I've added Stickney, it's more obvious there (page 44, but also 42). What I'm thinking is actually if Saranda can be named 'town' that period, the census of 1913 counts ca. 150 people...Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Kountourios i've replaced Greek-Albanian with Arvanite, it's for sure more specific. Also, it's still in the lead Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Souliotes are mentioned as such too (but you didn't liked that on them I remember). We have already talked on that 'Greek-Albanian', 'Albanian-Greek' terms stuff. See Souliotes discussion. So, what do you believe the Hydraioi were? (no Arvanites but Greek-Albanian?)

About Saranda, in page 44 says that it was blockaded by the Greek navy, because it was the main port of the insurgents (the Autonomists, in p. 42 and p. 40, says that the revolt there was in full power, also Ruches says the same [[19]]Alexikoua (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make some rewording in Sarande.Alexikoua (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, btw, have u something about the Ottoman period in Saranda? I've noticed something that did Ali Pasha in the region of Vurgut, is Saranda included in that region? (I think Vurgut is stretching from Konispol to Delvina)Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

license

I think that would constitute a free license, and you'd be OK with the Template:Attribution template. However, the disclaimer limits it to "educational" use only. Whilst WP would probably fall under this category, but I am not as well-versed in copyright issues. If you upload locally, there shouldn't be a problem, but before you upload anything to Commons, better make a query here. Regards, Constantine ✍ 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On licenses in general, have a look here. It's quite clear, and covers the "educational purposes only" as well. Regards, Constantine ✍ 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

I added you as an involved party in arbitration case about the edit-dispute regions --Sarandioti (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]