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)

Enjoy after the great work...

I know you like Bakllava.

For the tremendous work in terms of quality, quantity, and importance - thanks ! Mondiad (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mondiad: Thank you ! It goes down well with some boza alongside. :-)

Arvanites

Regarding the ethnic connection box, we shouldn't change it to Tosk Albanians since it is not about the linguistic connection, but about the ethnic one. The back then settlers can't be known if they were all tosk, gheg, or mixed. Ethnically, Albanians are just Albanians.
Also, the user that closed the discussion (Josve05a), said literally "and I very strongly recommend not feeding the trolls and not continuing to humour "Othon" by responding further to him in any way. Just ignore the noise." -- so don't feed him with more talking. His hatred for Albanians disqualifies him as a normal editor which one should normally have the pleasure to do a constructive talking.
--Mondiad (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mondiad:. Regarding the ethnic connection box that wont get changed. Tosk is a sub-group. Moreover a Geg overlay has been identified amongst the Arvanites (Hammond). There is this idea in Greece that Tosks, Labs and Chams (collectively Tosks) are Albanianized "Greeks" and Gegs are the "real" Albanians. It came from a particular point in time and has its lingering adherents though not based on scholarship. Its also a strong view that Arvanites especially espouse today because they want to affirm their position in Greece as the "purest" Greeks (its why Pelasgian stuff exists also) and the Albanian factor makes them uncomfortable. Bintliff identifies this as part of the state building ideology. I explained all of this to Othon. I cannot say that it is hatred he has for Albanians. I am in no position to make that determination. He may be of Arvanite origin or heritage and has a interest in the article. Western non-Albanian scholars (often Greek themselves) have outlined that in Greece, its populace, due to the state and a sizable proportion of its people have certain pejorative views of Albanians. We have encountered this with other non-Albanian editors on Wikipedia (as my talkpage shows and so on). As such however i cannot disregard that a sizable amount -at this point in time- of edits Othon wants to make are in good faith. He is new. My advice to Othon regarding other edits he wants to do in future about expanding the bit on the Greek war of independence and so on was it can be made provided he has good sourced material based on reliable scholarship. Absent that then its a no. It will be up to him to abide by the rules. I have a good grasp of scholarship on the Arvanites, so i know what is a red flag source if used. I have even told off Albanian editors in past times when they have used dodgy material. As long as he uses good material toward making the article better than i wont say no for the sake of saying no as other non-Albanian editors often do(as you i am sure you have had that experience) even when peer reviewed scholarship is presented.Resnjari (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Panagiotis Kone

Hello,

Love to hear what you think with regards to Kone's ethnicity. I feel like I'm being tag teamed by Zoupan and Alexikoua and it would help if a user would back me up here (only if you find my arguments convincing of course). Please see the talk page to familiarize yourself with the current discussion. I've also made a post on the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard. Mind you, this is a separate issue from the mistranslation (see talk page for more information). Finally, don't forget to read this as well (translation of quote): [[5]]37.46.188.80 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Gotta say, they weren't very helpful (new account) :)DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

With regards to your "summary of dispute" (I was not sure if I could answer your post directly, so I decided to post here instead): while I do agree with you, I believe it is a separate issue. If you read my dispute overview, you'll notice that the only arguments I make are essentially that the source in question doesn't support that Kone was born "into an ethnic Greek family". One could also argue that he's of Albanian ancestry based on his press release, but I prefer to take one step at a time. The more complicated and bloated the arguments get, the less likely I believe that someone neutral would help us solve the dispute.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: I understand where your coming from. However what the argument put forth by other editors is that certain words when translated have different meanings etc. They will constantly contest this and the bit that you cite. It is why it will be difficult to move on the issue. We need extra translations. I placed the bit in the noticeboard about getting translations from other impartial editors because maybe the admins can go about it and request it instead of it coming from us. I know those two other editors (one in particular) so far involved who is offering a different view to yours. We need to make sure that what other editors state is in line from impartial translations. This is the crux of the matter. Otherwise you will not get far with this. Kone comments are published in non-English publications after all.Resnjari (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no disagreement with regards to the translation, "I still have relatives in Albania, they are all Greeks". We all agree on this. This quote, and no other, is the basis for asserting that Kone was born "into an ethnic Greek family". The press release in which he declares Albanian ancestry/originating from Albania is not relevant here.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If all comments are attributed to Kone without a doubt then they go into the article. Orthodox Albanians in Albania, well amongst some of their number that migrated to Greece have fluid identities. This has been borne out in scholarship. In a way they are the new Arvanites, Orthodox Albanian speaking populations between identities and ways of being. These issues are really complicated here. I prefer that the other stuff about Kone saying he is Albanian cited in other media needs to have good impartial translations. This is to make sure that no impropriety occurs. I am just saying as i have dealt with at least one of those editors in times past and understand how they go about things.Resnjari (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me just ask you a simple question instead. Do you not believe it's original research to assert that Kone was born into "an ethnic Greek family" based on the following quote: "Some of my relatives still live in Albania, they are all Greek"?DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni:Ok, i reflected on it, you made a valid point and added a additional comment. We are also going to need some impartial translations of the other stuff if we go the whole way on the matter.Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your brilliant ideas and awesome mind in making this place a great one! MorenaReka (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

I am starting a discussion at Alexander the Great's talk page about his Illyrian heritage and I want you to be present. It's clear that Greek editors can't accept it. If you know other editors who would be suitable on this discussion please inform them. Your thoughts on the discussion are completely accepted. Usuiko (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Alexander's Illyrian heritage, you are going to run into serious, serious, serious, very serious, roadblocks (and that is putting it politely) not only from editors (and it won't be due to them being difficult for the sake of it), but peer reviewed scholarship that they will use to back them up. My advice to you is to focus on articles on the Albanian Wikipedia project that need real attention. Or if English Wikipedia isn't your thing there is more than enough to do on Albanian Wikipedia. If you want give me an email through my Albanian userpage and i can send you peer reviewed journal articles etc on a topic of substance. Also make sure even for articles or any article that edits made are importantly based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary and not on wp:original. Read the policies so you don't get into complicated situations that may leave a bitter Wikipedia experience instead of a positive one. BestResnjari (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship disagrees about whether the Molossians were Greek or Illyrian. Olympias, Alexander's mother, was a Molossian. As long as the issue of the Molossians is unresolved so is that of Olympias'. --MorenaReka (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I know there are differing views on the matter though the editor who has now engaged in this process of seeking change has not brought any wp:reliable sources. Its going to be problematic and wont get far. Albanian editors need to focus on more recent topics like Northern Epirus which is extreme POV and lacking much wp:reliable and has much unsourced content and is wp:original, than small trifles like Alexander the Great.Resnjari (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Co-nationals vs non-co-nationals

May I ask why your initiative about Northern Epirus is limited to your co-nationals? For example this [[6]] propagating about the issues of the article is again limited to wp:Albania. I can only assume why you don't post the same text in the rest of the related wikiprojects. let's say wikiproject:Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: first off, don't use language such as "Co-nationals vs non-co-nationals" thankyou (see:wp:civil. I posted the matter on that forum. That is there appropriate place for it to be for such matters. It does not contravene policy. On that forum other editors (of Albanian and non-Albanian heritage) can discuss the matter who have a interest in the article. I also placed the matter on the Greek-Albanian Wikipedia board thing also which is co-operated with wikiproject Greece>[7] I am not part of Wikiproject Greece. For those involved there, its up to them (place forum links here of all ears that need to be placed at and i more than willing to do it). The article in question must abide by wp:reliable and wp:secondary and currently it does not and there are many issues outstanding. You stopped the editing process halfway some while back and gave no reason for it. This issue however has been left outstanding.Resnjari (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You should avoid this kind of disruption of mobilizing armies of your nationals which clearly falls into wp:disruption. A neutral editor would have posted the same text in all related projects. For future reference a wikipedian can post to any related projects.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not resort to accusations. In case if you noticed there was some time between when i placed the bit in the Albania wikiproject and the Albanian-Greek board (which i did first). And it was within around an hour as i looked for the talkpage on the Albania project). Your claim "A neutral editor would have posted the same text in all related projects" as "Disruption" is if i go around canvassing or other such behavior. Wikipedia has deliberately developed those forums/talkpages on those projects for such purposes where articles and their issues can be discussed by people concerned in the project itself. I have not contravened the "disruption policy. I know it well, its why i am going through the appropriate channels. Note i have outlined the issues on the matter and stated outright that it is in need of attention. Claiming that it is "disruption" in this instance is your opinion. The forum wiki project talkpage is the appropriate place to place such concerns. I will not be censored by you or anyone else. Now either you are going to give me the links to the similar talkpages or i am going to seek them out over the next few days and place the attention message there. Either way the article is is need of work.Resnjari (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Uprising of Lumë

Hi,
User:Albanian Historian has created the article about the Uprising of Lumë or Battle of Lumë of 1912. I started just copyediting it, but I got more an more involved since it came out a very interesting article. But it was translated from Alb Wikipedia correspondent article and other sources, so it faces the usual problems. This event is constantly neglected from the Alb historiography for some reason. Can you check for more sources? I will probably ask Zoupan to have a look later and bring sources from the other side, if he doesn't get it already by then. If you're busy, no worries. :)
--Mondiad (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC) @Mondiad:. I did a search for sources and there a few more i need to do (i check for Serbian language ones. Its does not even come up there. I tried words like Ljuma and> bitka, ustanak etc and in their Cyrillic form and nothing came up. I placed a good source for you in the article and its whole inline. Do with it as you wish to tag various sentences to that source and its in line. I do have some backlogs that i need to take care of. i will get to the article as soon as i can. Best.19:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on the expulsion of the Albanians

Yes, you wanted to talk to me? --Albanian Historian (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Albanian Historian:. Don't take this the wrong way brother, but some things i need to say or going going to run into multiple headaches and issues. If its repeated, you may be referred by other editors to arbitration like forums for a sanction. I prefer you do not end up in these situations, so bear with me with the comments i make. I make them so your important and much appreciated input continues, though meeting the requirements of Wikipedia policy. I wanted to say to you that your edits in certain articles are a bit problematic. You have used Albanian sites in the past that do not meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary. I know that some of these websites do publish academic articles which they have copied and pasted from Albanian academic sources (most often without the publication's or scholar's permission or knowledge). If you are going to use one of these articles, do a google web search (and or through google scholar and google books) to find out and or locate where originally they were published and cite that article or scholarly work by using its original academic citation (so and so journal or so and so book chapter in a edited book by so and so scholar etc). Otherwise your content will be removed, articles deleted at times and allegations from the usual editors (they are a small group, but you know who they are) of "Albanian POV". You also in that instance create a lot of work for other editors to come and clean up and these increases the work load for the very few Albanian editors that are active on English Wikipedia. Anyway, I will cite examples of edits by you in the article about Balkan wars massacres of Albanians [8]. You cite Leo Freundlich. He is a good source as he chronicled massacres and so on. However his works in the end constitute wp:primary and more than likely will be removed. Wikipedia accepts overall wp:secondary material as scholars have done an analysis and synthesis of the primary documentation and have judged the material to be wp:reliable for use in their works. It is these works who cite the primary sources like Freundlich that you use in a article. I will cite for you a example to see. For example i used Mark Levene (2013). Devastation: Volume I: The European Rimlands 1912-1938. Oxford University Press [9] for the Battle of Lumë which make the edits and accompanying edits stick about such issues like massacres. Also do a google search and in scholar ans books to come across such sources to expand and make the article watertight. I would say also to avoid(when the moment and context calls for it) using Albanian sources if an issue/article is controversial and try to find non-Albanian scholarly sources that say roughly the same thing as the non scholarly source. This will assist your position about and deflect the usual accusations of bias directed toward Albanian editors in general. I hope this was of some assistance and keep the good work up !Resnjari (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Roudometof

Hey, can you quickly verify that the "no evidence of state persecution" part in Roudometof's book actually exists? Because for some reason it doesn't show up in Google books. And also, what's the context? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it and i have the source. Anyway an important thing to note is that Roudementof's claim (in 2002, based not on the Greek state archive i might add) though is obsolete due to Baltsiotis in depth research of the Greek archive in his 2011 study.Resnjari (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhaxhir (Albanians), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (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) 11:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruption

I've noticed your comments intervene with that of the reviewer. Prenteding to be a reviewer yourself and promoting your extreme pov is at least disruptive and clear violation of wp:AGF. However, you can add your comments in a seperate section.Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexikoua.All i have to say to you is this, see wp:civil. Wikipedia has no rules that certain people can or can not participate as long as they stick to the rules and guidelines on interactions and rapport. You for one deleting my comments are not engaging with the process, but have made an attempt to censor me. I am a reviewer, just on Albanian wikipedia. Now i like do so on English Wikipedia and there are no restriction to who can participate as long as it is done in good faith. Do not delete my comments. If you have a issue take me (or whoever else) to the administrators and appropriate forums if rules where not followed.Resnjari (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naim Frashëri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish (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) 10:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Islam in Albania into Expulsion of Cham Albanians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I am not particularly sure as to what you are referring too. I am writing up the Islam in Albania article based on good peer reviewed references. The only piece of information that i moved into the Expulsion of the Chams article was a reference based on Karpat about the word Turk and Muslim becoming synonymous in the late Ottoman era in relation to Albanians. That particular reference was moved from the Turco-Albanians article and important to be in the Expulsion article regarding context. But the sentence that i wrote was different. Moreover that referance in the Turco-Albanians article that i moved on a sentence was written by me also. So can you elaborate exactly were this has occurred that i have not attributed it in the edit summary considering that you say "if you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required". ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cham Expulsion lede

Please ping me once you've drafted the new lede. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Resnjari. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Heath W. Lowry.The discussion is about the topic Heath W. Lowry. Thank you. --Iamozy (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Armenian massacres

Hi Resnjari, I have started writing on my sandbox on how to treat all the available opposing materials to write a neutral article. It would be very helpful if you could add your input. Tks. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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 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 Thomas.W ^talk 10:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thomas.W. I am not sure as to why this template is on my talkpage ? I am curious considering that you have placed it only on my talkpage. I follow Wikipedia's regulations very strongly. Could you clarify and is this in relation to something ?Resnjari (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's on your talk page because I saw your post on Talk:Kosovo, talking about "ethnic cleansing and often many massacres of Balkan Muslims", and wanted you to know that all pages relating to the Balkans, broadly construed, are under discretionary sanctions, rules that of course apply to all editors who are active on those articles, regardless of which perspective they edit from. As the template clearly states, posting the template on your talk page does not imply any misconduct regarding your contributions to date, it was posted to make you aware of the special rules that apply to articles about the Balkans. Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the rules and hold myself accountable to them and thank you for the reminder. To cite myself Thomas.W, the "ethnic cleansing and often many massacres of Balkan Muslims" is not a myth but a fact, just like the Armenian Genocide is fact and not myth. If there is an issue in myself referring to such things on Wikipedia then the same should apply to other like events i.e massacres etc when discussed in the article's talkpage. I was merely pointing that out within the context of the wider discussion about great power geo-politics and Albanians. As you would have been observing my edits on the Islam in Albania page, i take peer reviewed material and its contents very much into account and hold myself to that. I do not base myself on shoddy information. Those events of violence against Muslims have been cited in scholarship and i can give listing of that academic literature regarding that matter if interested (this goes for every editor who might see this on my talkpage). Also I made reference to that in my comments because there is this assumption out there that Balkan Muslims have always been the ones who are the initiators of violence which is wrong or that they have manipulated the powers that be to do their bidding in some sinister way. Great Power geo-politics and the harnessing of it by local Balkan peoples happened on both sides and continues to be done today for whatever reasons, some for survival others to advance their nationalist agendas etc.Resnjari (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions notice is required by the discretionary sanctions system even though some editors may be aware of the special rules that apply even without getting alerted to it, since it's the only way for uninvolved administrators patrolling edits in problem areas to know which editors can make a reasonable claim to not being aware of the rules, and which editors can't (a claim most editors make after having been sanctioned...). Thomas.W ^talk 12:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine Thomas.W. As long as equal treatment is portioned to editors such as placing that notice to all those involved in a discussion (that may alert a administrator's oversight down the track) so no one feels that they were singled out so that impartiality is observed.Resnjari (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Kazandibi

	Kazandibi
	Although I mostly disagree with your viewpoints I offer you a small sign of appreciation. Gëzuar. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Resnjari. You have new messages at Oranges Juicy's talk page.
Message added 10:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feel free to leave any posts there on the things you and I personally discuss. The last thing we need to do is create TLDR for others on a legit talk page with our forum-like posts! :) OJ (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much

Hi, thanks for reverting the edits made by Lasort101; it was another sockpuppet of User:Steverci. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Its all good LouisAragon! Anytime. Surprised that it was a sock of Steverci though. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

?

Do you intend to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Expulsion of Cham Albanians or should we proceed without you? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I am waiting to see what the other two editors were going to write. If they don't post something in around 24 hours from now, i will add my comments. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Resnjari. You have new messages at Oranges Juicy's talk page.
Message added 10:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Long again (sorry!) - but I think I've covered everything pretty much. :) OJ (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Reported

Actually I just realized you broke 3RR at Konitsa. Reported here [10]. Athenean (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by filer. [11].

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Northern Epirus 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.

If you want to make changes, I suggest discussing them one by one in the talkpage. Trying to ram them through by brute force will get you nowhere. Most of the stuff you added is completely irrelevant to the article anyway. This article is not Islam in Albania, and it won't turn into it. Athenean (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Athenean i have. How long must i wait. The template was removed. Moreover, Islam is the religion of half the population of the region defined as Northern Epirus. Have a read of Kokolakis for one. The region also has Islamic heritage and that is based in peer reviewed material.Resnjari (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall additions such as images of mosques and the Weigand map ever being proposed in the talkpage. I find such edits highly POV. The article isn't about Islamic heritage in Albania, that is off-topic. Athenean (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only addition of yours that was truly on-topic was the one about how the Muslim Albanians resisted against the Northern Epirote movement. That one, yes. But the rest I think are off-topic. This article isn't Islam in Albania. Athenean (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Athenean, the article is not about Islam in Albania. Understood. Northern Epirus is defined as covering a large swathe of land that includes a large amount of people who are Muslim and that is why included what i did. Those few sentences giving information about people who exist there that are not Greek and Orthodox. A simple question to reflect on is then where did they come from and why the dispute over northern Epirus? Anyway I will give my comments in the talk so discussions are in one talkpage. Please read Kokolakis as at least its in Greek and is one of the most in depth studies of the area to date. It will assist in the discussion.Resnjari (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 for editors. 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) 19:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there, would you be of assistance on the Turkish people article? I have worked really hard to find as many sources as possible for the infobox. But I have continuously been reverted and nobody is having a discussion with me to solve the dispute. What should I do? One of the users has threatened to block me. But I just wanted to correct the figures because they are all distorted. This is what they keep reverting it to [12] and this is my edits [13]. O.celebi (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, it seems another user "Ugud" has joined User "Athenean" in completely vandalising articles including Kouloughlis and Turks in the Arab world. I'd really appreciate it if you can guide me on where I should report this.O.celebi (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi O.celebi. I had a look at the edits done by you. The first editor who objected to those edits did so on a reliability of sources reason. The second gave barely any reason. Make sure you do not surpass the 3 revert rule (see: WP:EW) first off as you may be reported and up for discretionary sanctions. No need to have a block blemish on ones Wikipedia account. Apart from this, engage the editors within the talkpage in good faith and always have the sources guide discussion. Make sure the scholarship you have used is WP:reliable and wp:secondary as sometimes certain scholars may be compromised for a variety of reasons. If an impasse continues, then your port of call would probably be the reliable sources noticeboard as the issue is about reliability of scholars and their work in this instance. I hope this helps. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As a Masters graduate from a very respected university, I do believe that I am capable of producing reliable citations. Indeed, I have given various different sources and it has all been removed. Ironically, some of these citations (which they object to using) are incorrectly used in the current version. I am quite shocked at the response that my edits have caused. The current version is clearly a mess and is dominated by users who do not seem to have good objectives. Unfortunately it seems that neither of these users are willing to even discuss the matter. I do not want to be blocked but at the same time I feel that my knowledge and qualifications will be wasted here on Wikipedia. O.celebi (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi O.celebi. Regarding the demographics bit, the editor who replied has a point as some of some of the sources date back from the 1990s and 2000s. You can use those for the Demographics of Turkey article which looks at Turkish demographics from a historical view. I forgot to say yesterday that for demographics related stuff on the Turkish people article, try to locate the most recent publications on certain demographics and look for scholars who whatever is their background/ethnicity have published in peer reviewed publications. Like for me i have access to some number of Albanian scholarship, however for contentious stuff i try to avoid using Albanian scholars and if i do i make sure they have published in Western publications or have their works published thorough a Western based publishing house. This is so as it avoids a lot of unnecessary chit chat on a talkpage about reliability of a source/scholar etc as they have been vetted by a Western source as being reliable. I now how this sounds but is how scholarship is done these days (Edward Said discussed this at length in his book Orientalism). Its good that you have a tertiary background and we need more people like you to edit Wikipedia. Good content and expertise make for better articles in the end. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It is great to see that there is someone here who actually understands the concept of Orientalism! I am shocked that this racist concept is being practiced here on Wikipedia. So it seems there is no point in using Arabic sources either? A precedent on using only Western sources seem absurd considering many of these academics have probably not even set foot into the Middle East. O.celebi (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

O.celebi, part of my honours thesis touched on orientalism + Gramsci's work on socio-cultural and linguistic hegemony. When Said wrote his analysis, things have moved on somewhat as scholars from the outside have gone to places themselves and a majority now are not armchair types, thank goodness. I probably should have clarified what i meant in regard to Orientalism. Said mentioned that people who come from a Middle eastern/Muslim (or areas formally colonised by the West) background engage in knowledge production for the agendas of others in the centres around the world based in the West, as that is where power (political/economic etc) resides today. Knowledge, its uses and power serve a particular geography/country/people for the aims and intentions not of the scholar who comes from that particular people/locality (and acts as a conduit/informant for others) that that knowledge is being undertaken about. With that in mind my comment in essence was that for a scholar to be viewed as "reliable", etc, he/she would have to have gone through the process of having their work published in something based in Western countries were educational institutions carry a legitimacy above other educational places around the world. So say i use something published in Albania, its usage would be more contested (doesn't mean it wont go into Wikipedia, it just means that i have to spend more time explaining/justifying it) then say if that same scholar published in a Western publishing house or journal etc which gives them the aura of "reliability". By using the latter you avoid more of the complicated discussions about whether a scholar is reliable, etc.

However we also have to keep in mind that some scholarship in say Albania and Turkey is compromised due to government interference, so some scholars need to be double checked that they have no skeletons in the closet (just like a few scholars from the West also get such scrutiny). I know what i say sucks and even the Wikipedia community is aware of this (see: WP:BIAS). I say all of this because i have seen many a editor crash and burn (there are so few Albanian editors around, and even Turkish ones for that matter) and i hope by imparting this advice that the editing process can be made somewhat more durable for you. Otherwise you will become disillusioned after heated exchanges with certain experienced editors as so many have and then some have resorted to edit warring, others to name calling, others even worse to sock-puppeting (see: WP:SOSP). That is unnecessary and in fact they did a disservice by giving a pretext for others to remove them on technicalities. Only the sources should guide discussion (and if needed invoking wiki policy on sources etc), no need to involve other things of ones personal self or others, unless they do so themselves (and then ask them to kindly refrain from doing that). If any personal attack occurs that can go to a noticeboard. However always assume good faith. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean. I have a very busy schedule and therefore wouldn't even have time for an "edit-war". I've been respectful and hope that they will show me the same courtesy. I finally heard back from one of the users and have replied back. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you look at what I have to say. Since their main objection seems to be Akar and Soysal, I've asked them whether they will be willing to return it to my edits but removing these two sources as a compromise. Here's hoping I wont be attacked again. O.celebi (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

O.celebi, stay around just be selective on which article you edit like i am at the moment. I'll have a look and see. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Resnjari, I hope you're doing well!

I have already read the source you provided, it was a very interesting read!

I am finding the double standards in Talk:Turkish people very frustrating, but I will continue to point this out with sources, when necessary.

I am currently writing up an introduction and an info box in my sandbox. I have taken a look at the Albanians article, and have no objection to including a similar footnote if sources are placed alongside it. If you have time, I would really appreciate it if you have a look at what I have done so far.

I'm thinking that it might also be a good idea to place a footnote stating that Algeria, Libya and Tunisia forbid declaring ethnicity in official censuses (source and footnote). Moreover, I have not included European state censuses because they base their statisics on citizenship not ethnicity (source); in its place, I have looked for estimates regarding people of Turkish origin, which includes naturalised individuals and descendants. I've quoted all the sources.

Kind regards, O.celebi (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

O.celebi, That looks good. For the infobox, you would need to add a note at the subtitle: "Turkish minorities in the Arab world". It should say something like: > In Arab Middle Eastern and north African countries, Turks are not recognized as a minority. In a post Ottoman environment many of them have been culturally and linguistically Arabized with some retaining a semblance of Turkish heritage. Due to an absence of census data estimates on the remnants of the size of these populations vary. Regarding the scholars population estimates for Arab countries in the Middle East, i would also place the year of when that estimate was given by that scholar, so the reader knows. Play around with it on the sandbox and then i'll have a look. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Expulsion of Cham Albanians, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Expulsion of Cham Albanians page

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Start of mediation (I hope). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AA2 advisory

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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 Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mainly for this edit: [14]. The event is called Armenian Genocide and it's by no means a "Controversy", at least not on Wikipedia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, the addition of the word controversy was in relation to Kulin's comments (causing controversy) and not the Genocide itself being a "controversy". It probably came out wrong in the way regarding the word order in the title. I don't deny that a Genocide took place the same way as i recognize that violence and massacres have occurred to other populations such as Balkan Muslims as well. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it also has to do with you changing the wikilink from Armenian Genocide to Armenian deportation. I have the good faith that you made the edit to replicate what she said, but it just reads the wrong way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, i see what you mean. Looking at the history page, I reversed Lasort101's edit who later was found to be a sock of Steverci (that editor was going around deleting large chunks of content on many articles [15] and i restored the previous format. The old subtitle by the way read ==Armenian deportation controversy== and Lasrot's addition was ==Armenian Genocide== which i then added the words Controversy regarding to subtitle [16]. I didn't change it all and was at a time when Lasrot vandalized many articles and did not have time to go through everything with a fine tooth and comb. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamization of Albania

Hello, Resnjari. You have new messages at Talk:Islamization of Albania.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Resnjari. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Albanianism in the close of the Ottoman Empire

As per the discussion of whether it was only "small numbers" of Albanophone Orthodox that supported the Albanian national movement-- I interpret the "small numbers" here (as I think you do too, as per edit summary) as meaning small proportions in terms of sentiment. We don't have polls of the population from then, obviously, so we will never know who the "majority" supported. I looked in the sources listed and the one that I could get the page for (the others weren't offered for free on Google at the moment) didn't say anything that would suggest that the proportion of Orthodox Albanians supporting Albanian nationalism was "small". Most sources I've seen on this generally speak of the Orthodox population being divided. I'm excluding the nationalist rhetoric on either side, of course, the 'patriotic' Greek Orthodox sources claiming without much verification that all Albanian Orthodox were "Albanophone Greeks" who hated all "Turko-Albanian" Muslims, yearned for Greek rule etc, and also the patriotic Albanian sources that harp on the unique tolerance fetare te Shqiperise and seem to claim that not a single ethnic Albanian regardless of faith supported foreign rule ever (when there were even cases of Catholics who preferred Montenegro and Muslims who were against Albanian independence and supported Turkey).

For a mostly sober (though still clearly Greek in viewpoint) analysis of it, I could drop Psomas: [[17]]. Psomas notes that there was a regional difference among the Orthodox in Albania, whereby the Orthodox of more eastern regions (Korca, Permeti, etc) had a high proportion of Albanian nationalists, including a large number of Rilindas such as the Qiriazis, Mihal Grameno and (I would note) Naum Veqilharxhi, who was writing as early as 1825. So at least for those regions I feel its wrong to say that only "small numbers" supported Albanian nationalism as opposed to Hellenism. Nobody talks about the swathes of Orthodox Albanians in regions outside "Vorioipirus" (Myzeqe, near Elbasan, Berat, Durres...), but I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of Hellenism or lack of Albanian nationalism there either. And even in Psomas' more pro-Greek "Southwestern Albania", it should be noted that the area had large numbers of people who were actually ethnically Greek (who naturally were Hellenists), and there were many Albanian Orthodox nationalists even here-- i.e. Lunxheria may have had Zografos, but they also had the Meksi family, and pretty important rilindasit like Koto Hoxhi and Pandeli Sotiri. Sorry that was long winded. We don't have actual numbers, so what's the point in saying it was only small proportions of Orthodox? --Yalens (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yalens, though myself being wary of Greek sources at times, there are a few studies out there that stand out from the pack that are not mired in the usual tropes. Kokolakis did a demographic study looking at the archive and other many primary sources and has been cited by respectable wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources also. His study looked at national affiliations. Though it is not in doubt that the Orthodox Albanian community produced some number of national movement activists (slowly increased over time), they themselves acknowledged that among the people, the sentiments of the Orthodox Albanian speaking population were toward Greek identity or they were indifferent on the issue (see Nitsiakos, Skoulidas, even Skendi, in the Islam in Albania article -the 1800s one, click on the weblinks and follow the page numbers i have placed for those sources). Its why those activists in their works and pronouncements usually go on about stopping hellenisation and the need to have a common brotherhood with Muslim Albanians etc, etc. Nonetheless the population group who first began affiliating and eventually supported the national movement below the Shkumbini river were Muslim Albanian speaking people. What Kokolakis' study notes is that during the time of the Albanian national awakening is that numbers slowly were beginning to affiliate with the Albanian national moment and Greece began to show concern.

Still, it was not a big move and my edit on that was about the relationship of Albanian Muslims with the Albanian Orthodox at that time (have a read of Kokolakis - you can copy and paste pages from the book in google translate if you cannot read Greek. There are a few maps based on good strong data which are also of interest to you as you have made some maps in the past). Psomas' study cites an important factor regarding sentiments. On page 280, Psomas refers to Orthodox Albanian immigrants returning back to the Korca region, who had attained national Albanian sentiments in the USA. This happened after independence until the 1920s that tipped the balance (i.e: also wanting an independent Albanian Orthodox church) and also the inclusion of Orthodox Albanian people in the state literally halting the hellenisation process among the youth at least. Before that it was more pro-Greek and why the Northern Epirot movement had wide geographical spread (all its leaders were from an Orthodox Albanian speaking background except Spiromilos). My edit in the Islam article refers to the pre-1912 situation and sources do not disagree on this. You may come across ones that do. Add them here. Anyway a few articles need to be addressed on wiki that relate to these issues and it would be good to work on them together to make them better. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, though I'll be quite busy in general for quite awhile :(. I would argue that the statement by the British diplomats (admittedly half a decade or so after independence) that the younger generations in the "Southwest" were Albanian nationalist in orientation at least partially contradicts this. But I think a much bigger issue is that given the nature of ethnoreligious debates in the Balkans- including between Muslim and Orthodox Albanians. I'm sure I could summon up some puro shqiptar ortodoks to be (perhaps unfairly) outraged that the contributions of Sotiri, Hoxhi, Vreto, Veqilharxhi, Qiriazi and so on are dismissed with their supposed "small numbers", or might bring up the fact the pre-independence pro-Turkish faction of Albanian (Sunni) Muslims that opposed independence (for a quick example-- Skendi, The Albanian National Awakening, p58) and one quite religiously-tinged Muslim pro-"Sultan" revolt in Central Albania (neither of which are mentioned on the page as of yet). All of these identity politics debates miss the point though. I'm not disputing that a majority of Albanian nationalist activists were probably Muslim, or that a portion of Orthodoks in the South were Grecophile, but can we really assert the "smallness" of the Albanist Orthodox faction without hard numbers? Do you have a page to cite for Kokolakis (yes, a Greek), Skendi or Vickers saying specifically that only a small minority of Christian Albanians in the South supported the Albanian movement? for Kokolakis I don't want to go on a multihour page-by-page goose chase with Google Translate and the other two aren't available to me at the moment --Yalens (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yalens, on the conservative Muslim inspired uprising, Muslim Albanians opposing Albanian independence and other measures like being against the alphabet and so on, that is cited in the article: Islam in Albania (1913-1944). When i did the trim down a few weeks back creating three additional articles, i moved it to there as the main Islam in Albania article was over 12,000 words. I can add those sentences back covering it if you think their important for the main Islam in Albania article (copy and paste for me here which sentences you think need to go back, i'll do the rest). Identity politics no. Albanian identity as expressed today arose from a complicated process. No need to sideline it. When that happens it opens the door to others doing edits that are problematic at best, you get the jist - i am sure you have had run ins with some over the years. Younger generations starts later, however in the Psomas article that only relates to national consciousness for the Orthodox after 1912 and does not say something about interactions with Muslim Albanians. Thus its only relevant for the Orthodox Albanian church article. I fixed up the small numbers bit to some. There were activists but their emergence starts later and in the USA, Egypt or in the Ottoman regions outside the 4 vilayets. On Kokolakis, on page 370 onward there are a series of maps based on data that Kokolakis has examined, worth checking out. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I'll check that out. With regards to identity politics, on the other hand I think it is still worth discussing for the current era (with an unattached perspective, of course)-- which I think the pages do fairly well already actually, though more could be added on the whole Kadare-Qosja identity controversy which I might do sometime soon (with Babuna, de Rapper, etc.). One thing I can't find is any actual citable sources on what is another contender, at least colloquially, in the debate-- the Albanian secularist-nationalist (or even atheist-nationalist) synthesis which applies the same arguments against both Christianity and Islam that the Christian-national synthesis applies only to Islam (i.e. "oriental", linked to foreigners and therefore suspicious, backwards and also that Albania is the "most atheist" nation of the background and is in Atheist Europe along with the Scandinavians, Czechs and French). Obviously its origin is communism but it seems to have long outlived communism and been transformed by the influence of Western new atheism, and its fairly common to be performed by especially Albanians from the South of either Sunni or Orthodox background... and I swear I've seen it before in literature, but I can't seem to find it today. I mean the modern version of it, not the one imposed during communism (which probably contributed to it, admittedly). If nothing comes to your head, it's fine, just thought you might have an idea who might have written about this. --Yalens (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yalens, here is the link of the Islam in Albania article before i did the splits. [18] -makes it easier to look at everything in context. I only went with Qosja-Kadare because their debate was the most prominent, went on for a few years being covered in Albania and their publications making the rounds among the populace. Those two kicked started it with others then adding their input which was controversial not for the reason that it dealt with Islam in a critical way, but the racist language they used (i.e Maks Velo: 'Kosovars are primitive due to being Muslim', 'minarets look the rockets of Iran' etc). The article is about Islam in Albania and no need to make it about debates about Islam in Albania otherwise the article will lose focus. Considering the whole debate in general did take on a quite strongly Islamophobic tinge, if you want we can kick start a article called Islamophobia in Albania and then expand at will all with these debates etc. On the communist perspective, Kadare and those who commented with similar or more controversial language are seen as reflecting the views of the old "Albanian secularist-nationalist (or even atheist-nationalist) synthesis". See Schmidt-Neke p. 15.[19]. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Lovely words aren't they :/. As for an article on Islamophobia, honestly my general observation has been that most of the "anti x-group bigotry" pages (different racisms, anti-national sentiments, sectarian bigotries) generally turn into edit war battlegrounds, due to the emotive nature of the topic and its use in propaganda outside Wikipedia. In the case of Islamophobia in Albania, I would argue a better alternative is to place it within the context of wider interreligious relations. Within this, Islamophobia is one of many relevant dynamics that merits discussion, along with the historical context (communist, Zog, independence, Ottomans), anti-other-group sentiments, historical nad current competition between faiths including Islam over resources (nowadays buildings, historically the Orthodox-Muslim tension in the land reform controversy after independence), and so on. I'm currently working on a general page that discusses the role of religion and other factors in national identity and relevant debates within this realm, in my sandbox. A section on Islamophobia would be a good addition there I think. I may have to drastically reduce its scope from the current state (which also looks at ethnicity, history and language, and has an array of planned sections for the identities of minority groups), however... --Yalens (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yalens, I was looking at your suggestions. Perspective and anlaysis wise we coincide on how we look at the issues. You would need though to cut it drastically. I would say your article in the end may end up being challenged and deleted. Reason being editors will say that chunks of it can go into other articles that already exist (as subheadings and sections) and it is a fork. I would say use that sandbox layout as a guide fill up a section on it and then place that section in a existing article adressing shortcomings there. Also on minority thing, Albania doesn't have a indigenous Turkish community. Turks In Albania are there post 1992 ((a few hundred countered in the census). The small number from before going back to the Ottoman era where some clerics and soldiers who married locally and assimilated. Bosniaks in the Shijak region have not been albanized. They are AAlbanian citizens but that is different. They still speak Bosniak as a mother tongue there and its still alive and kicking (see: Stienke and Ylli -got to the demographics section of Islam in Albania and see footnotes). A small group who went to the Myzeqe area linguistically assimilated. In recent times they have accepted Serbia's offer and they receive assistance for the Serbian language classes. The Shijak Bosniaks have of course rejected Serb offers.

Reflecting on the Islamophobia thing you are right. I propose then a different alternative. How about a Orientalism in Albania or Albanian Orientalism article (examples to look for possible structure: Orientalism in early modern France; Black orientalism; Scottish orientalism? For concepts etc see: Orientalism, Orientalism (book), Nesting Orientalisms. We can use Enis Sulstarova to set the parameters of defining the article's scope + framework as a great starting point. Sulstarova has published in wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources in the West and in English too. In his works he traces Orientalism in Albania as basically going back to the 1870s - the Rilindja period going all the way to the Qosja-Kadare thing. The article can basically cover both those (individuals, regions, religious groups etc etc) who had a fascination with the east and those who disliked it now and then. The article's scope would not just encompass the Middle East, but also Asia, mainly China (Enver's relations and cultural influence which has affected Albania's views of Asia (some racist sadly). Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm fairly familiar with Said's work. I think it could be confusing because at least I've encountered another (older?) definition of "orientalist" in Albanian (and also in English, although this use is long atrophied and irrelevant), meaning someone who prefers ties to and identifies with the "East" (read: Muslim countries). The Said-derived definition is surely also (perhaps more) used in primarily Muslim circles (like ZeriIslam.com). "Occidentalism" can mean the converse, whereas in English it is mainly used as a sort of inverted Orientalism. I suppose it's not that much of a problem in English but sources could possibly get weird on this if we use older texts. If we are going to make a page based on Sulstarova's work, I think also making clear that it is within the conceptual framework of Nesting Orientalisms (or however Sulstarova fits it into Orientalism, I haven't read his works) would be good as per some definitions of Orientalism Albania would not be a legitimate possible "Orientalizer" due to its ambiguous position on the "East-West" dichotomy (for those who believe in a dichotomy...). And then because Orientalism is largely theoretical in nature we wouldn't be able to attribute statements that woul dbe classified as Islamophobic as "Orientalist" unless scholars of Orientalism themselves applied the label (for example) as that would be SYN(so such a page might end up fairly small. But I'm not against making it, with those things in mind.

Re Turks-- although perhaps its a bad idea as it increases the likelihood the page gets challenged and deleted, I actually was building the page in my sandbox on the basis of the entire Albanophone intellectual space which includes Albanians from Kosovo and Macedonia and Montenegro (but not, at the moment, Greece). There are indisputably Turks in Kosovo and Northwestern Macedonia some of whom have been "Albanized" (see the ethnicity switching patterns in the censuses, for example). In Albania there was once settlement by Turks of pockets of Albania-- around Shkoder, a pocket in Elbasan and a pocket near Korce. However there is no discussion of what became of these settlements nowadays Re the Bosniaks (some of whom are Muslims from Montenegro) yeah actually that's great, I'm gathering links on these things at intervals now-- in particular I'm trying to find things about the communities' conceptualizations of their own identities, but I'm putting this on hold at the moment due to the issue of deciding the scope of the page. I've also heard of Albanization of Orthodox Montenegrin communities (not near the border, but in Central Albania), presumably during the Ottoman era but no actually good sources on this on my hand at the moment. And yeah I'm aware the page looks like crap right now-- I have to reorganize it somehow to tie the stuff together in a way that is of Wikipedia's standards. One problem is my own Albanian literacy :/. But sandboxes are great, aren't they. --Yalens (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yalens, Sulstarova's stuff is a somewhat more wide-ranging though and covers both like and dislike and the mix that has resulted in. Kind of why i thought that might be an angle worth going about. Still we would need sources before creating such a page. In time though as there are other articles that need to be addressed first. As for Turks in Kosovo, Malcolm Noel's wide ranging study on Kosovo only says that Turks in Kosovo were found there from medevil times and lived in 3 small settlements. People today in Prizren and Mamusha for example are Albanians who took on Turkish culture and language in the 18/19th century (kind of like the Orthodox Albanians becoming hellenized) and in response to the urban countryside thing also, the phenomenon was limited in Kosovo. In a historical context, you will find sources for the Turkification of these people instead of the opposite. In Macedonia its a similar story and Macedonian sources even refer to turkifed Albanians in Gostivar and two to three villages around it. In Tearce are people who have declared themselves as Turks, descendants of Turks outright (settled a few hundred ago after disturbances by Albanians near the Kacanik gorge), while in Upper Zhupa the 5 to 6 villages settled by the Turks after the capture of Sfetigrad from Skanderbeg on which modern day Kodzadzik is built. There are good studies on these these days. Even the Albanians of Skopje called Turks in the 19th/early 20th century where noted by Gustav Weigand as speaking Albanian at home (cited in Aarbakke). The process was linguistic Turkification in certain areas (overwhelmingly urban in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje) but not outright of identity due to the Ottoman state being ejected from the region. In Macedonia these people have been switching and playing around with their identities, whereas in Kosovo its solidified, post 1999 (i.e: Mamusha, somewhat in Prizren. In Dobercan village though Turkish is spoken they identify themselves as Albanians).

In Albania numbers of Turks resident which was small have assimilated long long ago even before independent Albania came around due to small numbers. Elbasan, true was settled in some part by Turkish people upon its creation and Shkoder had some Turks of some number whom were clerics but overall by the creation of the Albanian state these had long assimilated. Of Korce, its the first i am hearing about this. There is no works about a continuous modern day presence because there is no continuous Turkish community. Turks in the census today are post 1992 made up of businessmen, people involved in the education sector (Gulen schools) etc. Of the Bosniaks, those in Shkoder do not regard themselves as Bosniaks or even Muslim Montenegrins but Podgoricani, from Podgorica (academic sources -also based on fieldwork -for more see Islam in Albania article: Steinke-Ylli, Tošić). Stienke and Ylli did fieldwork on all the Slavic communities in Albania from the mid 2000s until the middle part of this decade (see book 4: Vraka - Borakaj). On the book, about Montenegrins they mention nothing about Orthodox Montenegrin in Elbasan. The only person thus far who has mentioned a "Serbian Orthodox" presence or "Albanized origin" of the Orthodox of Elbasan was Jovan Cvijić and his work is noted for being politically biased (see: Wilkinson) advancing late 19th/early 20th century Serbian expansionism (also see: Serbian historiography). On sandboxes, yeah the're cool. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Mbase do te lexoj veprat e Sulstaroves, nese kam kohe (nje dite... sa larg...). As for the Orthodox Slavs in Central Albania these were not in Elbasan but rather further south, on this map you can see a brief Slavic (sometimes marked as Serb-Montenegrin-youknowthedrill-etc in one map, Bulgarian in others) around Mallakastra and Selenica -- see here ([[20]], [[21]], [[22]] ). Granted there are many errors in these maps. In any case I think I'm gonna ditch that part of the page anyways. --Yalens (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Get your hands on Maps and Politics: A Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia (1951) by Henry Robert Wilkinson. Its still a classic for Balkan studies. He dissects these maps (his coverage goes wider than Macedonia -book title should have had word Balkans). I say this because maps like Lejean's for example cover all of historic Epirus as having Albanians or consisting of Albanian speakers which is false. Greek Zagori, Pogoni, the area of Arta, Ioannina etc were mainly Greek speaking. Take those maps with caution as some had various political motives -see Wilkerson for more. Otherwise one ends up with POVish results and manipulations, i.e see map

"Blue for Greeks" - even areas that are inhabited by Muslim Albanians apparently in this map are Greek. Compare this POV map with the maps from Kokolakis based on actual and proper scholarship

. Also Kokolakis' very detailed study which encompasses the whole Ioannina Vilayet does not make reference to a Slavic population being resident there (even linguistically). On the few islands of Slavs down south, were mainly in Myzeqe brought by Ali Pasha as laborers from Ohrid . A few stayed, most returned back after his demise (see Selishchev). Hope it assists.Resnjari (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

BLP

I noticed that you added text in which you described a living person as nationalist (diff). I propose you to reword the sentence you added to refer to author's book, not to him personally. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Antidiskriminator. That is Anscombe's analysis, not mine (I can send you the article if so wish). Is there a Wikipedia guideline on this so i can double-check about whether one distinguishes between living and dead people regarding the label nationalist. Looking at the Historiography of Albania article you wrote a sentence [23] "Numerous nationalist historians from Albania (Ramadan Marmallaku, Kristo Frasheri, Skender Anamali, Stefanaq Pollo, Skender Rizaj and Arben Puto" that one refers to a whole host of Albanian historians as being nationalist based on Kopanski. I have no qualms with that, however would that be appropriate there yet Anscombe's reference is not for Batakovic ? Clear this up for me. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is very important policy about labeling living people. It is WP:BLP, like I indicated in the title of this section. If any of above mentioned historians is alive, then I will reword sentence I wrote. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok Antidiskriminator, i looked through the policy. I am also going to make an adjustment to the sentence you wrote so things are consistent. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Islam in Albania (1945-1991)

About your revert, please see guideline Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization: "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it". In this case Category:Religious persecution is a category above Category:Persecution of Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it after consultation on the matter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism

• Albanian nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This needs a talk page discussion (addition and removal of over 30,000 bytes of material). If there is any sense that people are reverting for nationalist reasons, someone may ask admins for WP:ARBMAC sanctions. Since you are an experienced editor you probably don't need the usual explanation of how to search for consensus. You also know that it's not enough for material to be well sourced, it also needs consensus to support its inclusion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for your feedback. The article was lacking much material and i added sections. Just to clear up some things on my part. My additions are not "nationalistic" and include elements of where Albanian nationalism has also had its ugly moments. Overall they relate to the development of Albanian nationalism. I have used peer viewed sources. I have also gone by this policy: WP:BRD. I have been bold which is step one of the process. You have asked me to revert, however the guidelines state the following: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." No information has been given as of yet why those edits are not an improvement for me to revert. Usually a revert occurs by another editor too. All editors who have it on their watch-list can take the time to go through and have a look at the content and then decide if it is or not of worth or standard to be removed and altered accordingly to initiate a discussion on the talkpage if there are issues. Best. Resnjari (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk page explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, all cool. Its a complex article but it can be done ! Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albania–Turkey relations

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Albania–Turkey relations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Werónika -- Werónika (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albania–Turkey relations

The article Albania–Turkey relations you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Albania–Turkey relations for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Werónika -- Werónika (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello there! I wanted to know if you have any references about the Dushmani family, because here they are quoted as a slavic family, even thought the Roman Catholic families of northern Albania have been Albanians.79.106.109.133 (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi 79.106.109.133 ! Thank you for your query. I came across two sources that meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary although not about the Dushmani being Albanian, but some additional information. The first is by William Miller,(first published 1921, republished 2014) about name etymology and connection to district bearing their name [24]. Second is by Elsie, 2015 who wrote a book about Albanian tribes. He clarifies the issue on name about not being connected to a Turkish etymology, partially discusses the family and then mainly the tribe that came to bear their name [25]. On the article page i would say to request for an inline citation of the Antonovic source (on the issue of Slavic origins and in particular the bit on "Albanization"). Reason being that Serbian historiography is very problematic (see wiki article for more). I would also recommend the excellent scholarly works of Alain Ducellier, he is a medieval expert who has researched and written much on medieval Albania - his works however are mostly in French. I will say this on the Dushmani. In medieval Albania, some number of the nobility were of foreign origin and placed there as governors/administrators (or for military reasons as commanders etc) or other by the Byzantines, Bulgarians, later Serbs and Angevins. After these states contested/lost control over the area, many of those people remained as they changed allegiances, intermarried with other aristocratic families (bolstering alliances, strengthening their positions) and in time married local and went native, i.e being somewhat culturally and linguistically Albanian by Skanderbeg's time. A similar parallel during this time would be medieval England whereby after the Norman conquest, French speaking nobles over time adopted English culture and language and saw themselves as English instead of being tied with the French mainland. By the way create an account instead of always using your IP address (not good for privacy issues as people can see your address details. Also by having an account you have more access to Wikipedia editing tools. Accounts are free to create and use. Hope it assists.Resnjari (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)