User talk:SilentResident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion nomination of Marianna Vardinoyannis article[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Marianna Vardinoyannis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have lifted the speed deletion nomination; that doesn't mean it isn't copyright vio, but a quick look suggests that you may have edited it enough that it's not an unambiguous violation, which is required for a speedy. I don't have time to work further on it now. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Converting the name "Thessaloniki" to the English "Thessalonica" for English Wiki[edit]

Please wait with that "Thessaloniki">"Thessalonica" renaming. You are introducing a whole lot of inconsistency between article texts and article titles. This is a pretty radical change and I can't say I find it obviously correct. This should not be done without first having a clear formal consensus about renaming the actual article. Please do a WP:RM before unilaterally changing all those articles. Fut.Perf. 09:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok. I just tried just updating the name to the English since thats the English wiki, (not that the other one isn't correct too), so Thessalonica to be much like all other old cities of Greece which ALL have English names. Dunno that it needed a consensus for that :o But ok. Can you ask for the consensus as I am not sure how to do it myself... :S And since it took me a whole hour to do the updates to the english name, I better leave this tedious task to someone else if consensus is reached. --SilentResident (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorting of member countries by territory or percentage order[edit]

Please read [1]. It shows the basis of the current ordering of countries and the consensus that was reached. The consensus is percentage of country within named region. Since nearly 100% of Macedonia is within the region of "Macedonia" it comes first. Then comes Greece since about 20% of Greece is within "Macedonia". Then comes Bulgaria, Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania (I think in alphabetical order unless someone has done the math to determine precisely what percentage of their territory is within "Macedonia"). --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Taivo for informing me about this. My bad, I thought it to be sorted by alphabetical order but noticed that it was sorted by territorial or population order except the first 2 countries on the list. Usually thats how countries are sorted in many other Wikipedia pages about regions. OK good to know. :) --SilentResident (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Naming Policy for the region of Macedonia[edit]

Dear user Vergiotisa, I shall inform you that in the English version of Wikipedia, your changes have been reverted as the name used for the republic is "Republic of Macedonia", and not "Macedonia" or "FYROM", as per Wikipedia rule. For the Macedonians, there is a distinction: Macedonian (Ethnic) and Macedonian (Greek), in case this helps. --SilentResident (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Silent Resident, I shall inform you that in the English version of Wikipedia, facts and legal correctness are more important than self proclamations. You have reverted to a name that FYROM proclaims itself but it is a name that is not accepted by the international community (UN) because it violates a historical name of Greece. "Macedonia" was an ancient Greek Kingdom in the ancient equivalent of the modern region of northern Greece. Copyright, State emblem laws the declaration of Human Rights on self identification and the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity all apply to PROTECT the name "Macedonia" from unrelated self proclaiming slavs to the north who are identified on an international level as the “FYROM”. As per Wikipedia rule, wikipedia is not the personal playground of propagandists. For the historical Macedonians, there is a distinction: Macedonian (Ethnic) is equivalent to Macedonian (Greek), because historically there has never been anything but a Greek identifying kingdom named Macedonia. In case this helps; anything else is factually incorrect and anyone insisting on this position is therefore pushing propaganda and for the record I will be taking this further until the appropriate corrections are made. --vergiotisa (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergiotisa (talkcontribs) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Vergiotisa, please check: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). As you see, your edits where you rename the "Republic of Macedonia" into "FYROM" goes against Wikipedia's consensus which declares that all English articles could refer to this country by its constitutional name, which is Republic of Macedonia, not "FYROM", even if the name is politically disputed. I agree that the Wikipedia is not a place of propaganda, but I am afraid that it is also not a place of politics as well. Please you have to comply with Wikipedia rules and refrain from renaming the Republic of Macedonia into FYROM. Thanks! --SilentResident (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear SilentResident I thank you for directing me to the: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) which are obviously the product of propaganda and the work of propagandists and which does not conform to United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 for the naming of the FYROM causing gross copyright violations of national symbols and state emblems as per Article 6ter: Marks: Prohibitions concerning State Emblems, Official Hallmarks and Emblems of Intergovernmental Organizations Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Propertyas well as violating article 29 # (2) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which limit self determination to respect the rights and freedoms of existing historical ethnic and cultural identities and article 2 and 4 of the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity that forbids infringing on an existing historical cultural identity. I will redirect my attention to making the appropriate changes so that the violations are rectified at the core level and from henceforth all articles for the FYROM conform to the new and appropriate guidelines. Your help has been invaluable (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think the Wikipedia is a ground where propaganda prevails, you are completely wrong. The Wikipedia clearly stated that the modern day Slav Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians are not related to each other, aside from the name. Alexander the Great, Philip, and the kingdom of Macedon were all Greek. The modern day Ethnic Macedonians are Slavic people, unrelated to the ancient ones. The Wikipedia already clarifies all that, and distinguishes the Republic of Macedonia from the rest of the region of Macedonia without the need to use the term FYRoM which is an alienated term that cannot be understood by most foreigners who are neither Greeks nor Ethnic Macedonians. Really, accusing the Wikipedia for being a ground of propaganda just because you don't agree with their neutral policies, doesn't mean that that will get your points right. Nor enforcing the use of the political terms such as FYRoM over the RoM helps. --SilentResident (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not accusing wikipedia I am stating facts, the legalities behind the use of the name "Macedonia" as well as the abuse by INDIVIDUALS with an agenda. You yourself have just admitted that this is an issue between Slavs and Greeks, two ethnic identities completely independent of each other which is what all the aforementioned laws, statutes and charters address. What are you arguing for then? The articles you are so vehemently protecting identify "Macedonians" and then they identify Greeks of Macedonia and you consider this "neutral"? By identifying the FYROM solely by the name Macedonia without the determination of "Yugoslavia" as the UN charter has addressed you are misleading the reader at the expense and disadvantage of the historically Greek Macedonians and it is this discrepancy that the international laws and thus the name "FYROM" are in place to clarify. Violation of international law that muddies the water for a political agenda will not be tolerated or excused by the term "neutrality". Your personal opinion (and your rhetoric which is nothing but opinion) means nothing. The use of the name disadvantages the real Macedonians and the movements of this gang of propagandist "thugs" who attack any attempt to apply the legal and correct version within wikipedia have thus far gone by fairly unchallenged by someone who is familiar with the legalities. This will now stop. Thugery and stand over tactics will not be tolerated in wikipedia and Sir when someone continues to take the side against the legal position then it is without a doubt an agenda. Good day to you Sir. Vergiotisa —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia can neither conform nor fail to conform to the United Nations resolution, as the UN resolution discusses only what the UN will use to refer to the nation; it makes no claim about what other folks who are not the UN should use to refer to it. As Wikipedia is not a UN project, that is a moot point. The claim that Wikipedia is violating international law by doing so has no grounding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you implying that Wikipedias judgement and opinion is above and beyond UN Resolutions and UN laws which govern the naming of Nations and The behavior of Nations with their Neighbors especially when both countries in question have signed to abide by those UN Resolutions and UN laws? Are you implying that Wikipedia is above the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity, WIPO and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which protects national symbols and state emblems. Are you an official spokesman for Wikipedia stating that you do not have to abide by any kind of convention of truth? Vergiotisa —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am stating that I have actual read the resolution in question, and found that it makes no statement about how other nations should refer to that nation, much less how private individuals and groups should do so; that even at that, it is not a UN law but merely a recommendation to the general body from the Security Council. I encourage you to read its text (it's quite short) so that you can see that for yourself, rather than continuing to misrepresent it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Security Council Resolutions are binding regardless of your lack of relative understanding. The UN Security Council engaged itself because it identified the misuse of the historical Greek name of Macedonia and deemed it a provocation and therefore a security issue. Its recommendation was that if the Slavs of a Republic of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia wished to include itself with the community of members of the United Nations, then it would do so ONLY in a fashion that did not violate the Declaration of Human Rights and the UNESCO terms of cultural diversity which the UN Security Council has adopted and which runs parallel to the UN Charter. The FYROM agreed to these terms making the resolution binding and thus it became a member state of the UN.
The burden of proof therefore is on anyone wishing to use any name other than the FYROM on an international encyclopaedic platform and must justify their position by include citations where the FYROM has participated in any formal international conventions, conferences, summits etc under any name other than the one allocated by UN Security Resolution 817 before they insist on another name that can and does cause discord between the two different cultural identities.
You have in your previous message agreed that this issue is one between two different ethnic identities, Slavs and Greeks of which the latter hold the historical identity of Macedonia therefore and in fact identifying and accepting the exact problem the UN Security Resolution towards the FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC sought to dispose of by adopting its binding Resolution 817at its 3196th meeting, on 7 April 1993.
Any continued objections to the name FYROM in Wikipedia, without valid proof to justify the use, that places Wikipedia in a position that adopts a biased policy against the very international resolutions, declarations, charters, copyrights and conventions that seek to protect from security issues arising from the misrepresentation of the “Macedonian” character in favour of the unrelated Slavs, indicates that the best interests of Wikipedia are not in mind but instead the objectives are of a more personal, dubious and questionable nature. --Vergiotisa (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, your claim about the "burden of proof" resides outside of the way Wikipedia names things.The United States of America gets referred to here by things other than its treaty name all of the time. Many people are similarly identified by things other than their legal names. If you wish to change Wikipedia policy, you'll find it best to address the Talk pages of those policy pages, not some user's talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia as you have stated previously resides within neutrality and the name currently pushed by some editors for the FYROM is one sided bias. The USA does not violate someone else's historical thousands of years old cultural name so that a UN Security Council Resolution was passed in order to regulate how it's name was used for it not to cause misrepresentations and security issues. You are not 'some' user. YOU reverted my legitimate edits citing a reason that is not acceptable on my personal talk page and you were answered. Thank you, yes, I fully intend to address and alter every fallacy and misrepresentation until all are correct. --Vergiotisa (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not SilentResident. You may have lost track, there are two other editors beside you in this conversation here. And having now looked at his edit on your talk page, all he was doing was summarizing some material from the Wikipedia naming convention regarding the Republic of Macedonia. He seems to have been playing within Wikipedia guidelines; if you have a problem with those guidelines, the best idea is for you to address it on the Talk pages for those guidelines and try to find consensus for change. Coming to his talk page and accusing him of thuggery, and misrepresenting both law and Wikipedia policy, is not going to serve your cause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not accuse anyone Sir I responded with the facts and clarified my position and the reason for my edits which SilentResident reverted and addressed on my page. Yes it seems I have lost track since I am not accustomed to having unknown third parties enter into a conversation between two individuals. There is no cause. There is only the intention to see neutrality and international conventions, resolutions, charters and copyrights adhered to. In any case I will be addressing the necessary talk pages hence forth. I thank you and the various others who deemed it necessary to enter into this conversation for your time and for your guidance. --Vergiotisa (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Accession of Albania to the European Union - Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Accession of Albania to the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (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) 08:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good notice. Fix applied! It should be good now. --SilentResident (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

BracketBot - Syntax error (fixed)[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albania–Greece relations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • between the two countries, which Albania's previous government signed with Greece in 2009.<ref>[ Kathimerini Newspaper:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DONE! - Typo error corrected by adding the missing "]" to close the brackets. --SilentResident (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Mosaic for the portrait of the Info Box[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ancient Macedonians. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid it was you who started the whole Edit/Revert War, Future Perfect. I am kinda surprised you are now calling me to respect a consensus, when I did nothing but to add new content to the page that complies with what was in place already and while there was nothing in the talk page regarding the artwork by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris. You shouldn't have been reverting my edits for four (4) reasons:
1) You reverted my Good Faith edits in that page using the excuse that the historical portrait by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (which I added to that page) was... "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value". This was extremely poor argument you have used here, given that historical artistic depictions historical people and nations, in absence of true photographic material, is permitted in Wikipedia and does not violates the rules, and you can see portraits in almost every page in Wikipedia. From the page of Napoleon Bonaparte to the page of the Native Americans in the United States (so, both people and nations have portraits). As I explained in that page, the portrait was borrowed from another Wikipedia page, the page of Alexander the Great, so I don't see how the portrait that was already in use in Wikipedia, was "utterly unauthentic image" of "dubious encyclopedic value" for use in another, related, Wikipedia page.
2) If you have a dispute about the historical authenticity specific portrait, you should have used the Talk Page of that portrait in Wikia Commons, or the page where the portrait was used already. If you have not disputed the portrait so far, I don't see how can you dispute its future use in other Wiki Pages.
3) I gave you 24 hours to make some further improvements to the page since you removed my edits because you judged the portrait for being "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value", but you didn't make any improvements. You only remove other people's edits without actually improving the page on your own. So, I gave it another try, but this time with your feedback in account, and I used a historical mosaic found in the archeological site of the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Macedon (which was already in the page, just lower, and which I moved to the leading picture), because that ancient mosaic sure cannot be characterized for being "ugly and utterly unauthentic image of dubious encyclopedic value". But still, even so, you reverted my edits again...(!).
You had no valid reason to revert the second edits, because an authentic mosaic of that era where the people lived, is of ultimate encyclopedic value, I am afraid.
4) You did rush to revert my changes on the page right in middle of my ongoing improvements to that page, and thus, you prevented me from finishing the first couple of edits to that page. You rushed to revert my half-done edits within less than 2-3 minutes, without giving me the change to finalize them and before I ever give the actual final explanation of all edits in the "Reason for my Edits" field. I highly recommend, Future Perfect, you don't rush to mess with the ongoing edits/improvements made by other Wiki people especially since they are not vandals, they are only improving the article. Rushing to revert edits could be understandable if the people where vandalizing the page. However, if the people are just trying to improve the page, I could expect that they are respected and are given some time - lets say, 5-10 minutes - so they can finish their changes. After that, you can judge if their work fits and meets the quality standards set by Wikipedia. What you have done is to see only half the edits I planned to make to the page because you rushed to revert them within 2 minutes... so it was obvious that the unfinished edits seemed poor to you. I admit, however, that on my side, I should have explained my reverts to your reverts aren't full reverts - are just edits that take your consensus in accountange (I listened to you and put the mosaic instead of portrait in leading paragraph) instead of fully restoring my previous edits (which you reverted without a valid explanation anyways). I was about to finalize the edits and give an explanation but you prevented me from doing so. You didn't gave me the time for that, by reverting any edits done by me, almost immediately, in about within less than 2-3 minutes. That wasn't enough time for me to make carefully these improvements to the page, which I did one-by-one for better control of what is edited. But yes, still I should have explained right away why I reverted your reverts right on the moment the revert-of-revert was applied to the page. --SilentResident (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Historiographical term vs real name[edit]

Fuck it, I'm sick and tired of you. When will you finally learn to bloody fucking first go to a talkpage and make an effort to understand people's objections before you start revert-warring? How often has this happened now? How often have I had to explain something twice or three times to you before you finally got it, while you kept reverting all the time? Fut.Perf. 08:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear FutPerfect, please be polite with me. You have no right to talk to me like this. Wikipedia does not belongs to you. It is a site where all people can contribute for the best information of the people and for the best possible readability. If your goal is to prevent the others from doing their improvements in the pages, then I am afraid, you are not understanding the basic principle behind Wikipedia's existence and evolvement to what today is the world's leading source for knowledge. I have already explained that my edits in the page of the Byzantine Empire, are in full accordance with what was done in all other pages. I am just lining up the material, by prioritizing the naming info of a State. I fail to understand how this is insulting to you, and why you take it in a very personal way. Please, next time you decide to talk in my talk page, be sure to show some more respect and appreciation for the fact that I, like most people here, are doing their best for the other people to use Wikipedia as a gateway for more knowledge and information. --SilentResident (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I actually will talk to you like this, because you made me angry, and I want you to sense how angry I am with you, so that you will understand that you are making people angry with the way you behave and have a chance to rectify your behaviour in the future. The problem is not your own explaining or not explaining your edits, it is that you consistently fail to understand the explanations I give you for mine, and that you consistently fail to take the time to understand them before you revert. Do you know the simple English words before and after? Then learn this: when there are objections against your edits, then you first go to the talkpage and make sure you at least understand why people are objecting to them, and then you can restore your edit if necessary. Simple, isn't it?
Now, in this instance, you have tried out three different ways of integrating "Roman Empire" in that first sentence. First [2] you called it an "official" name. Problem is, it wasn't an official name; there was no such thing as "official names" of states back then, and certainly not an "offical name" of the Byzantine Empire in English, a language of whose existence the Byzantines had no idea. Then [3] you introduced it with "more specifically"; problem is that "Roman Empire" isn't actually "more specific" then "Byzantine Empire" (look up what "specific" means). Then [4] you modified it by calling it "Late Roman Empire"; problem with that is that it isn't actually called that; in historiography, the term "Late Roman" conventionally refers to somewhere between the 4th to 6th centuries or thereabouts. So each of your three attempts so far have been plain, factually wrong.
As for your perceived need to get the alternative names into the lead sentence somehow, the only argument for doing that you have proposed is that other articles are doing it too. That, in principle, is a very poor argument on Wikipedia – there are lots of crappy articles on this project and crappy habits that have been entrenched through unthinking convention, and the habit of overloading lead sentences with naming details in brackets, taking up loads of valuable space before even getting to the gist of the defining sentence, is undoubtedly one such very bad habit. It makes lead sentences difficult to read and keeps the reader's attention away from the really important things, i.e. the definition that comes after the "was". Just because many other articles are doing it wrong is not a good reason to do it here too; in fact, we should be proud of having kept this one article clean of the bad habit. Alternative names, unless they are very few and can be handled with extreme brevity, are best handled where they are properly contextualized and explained, and the place we were doing it here was just fine. Your three failed attempts at explaining and contextualizing them properly in the first sentence just go to demonstrate that it is not conveniently possible with the required brevity there. Fut.Perf. 09:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me be clear: your argument of using only a historiographical term (aka Byzantine Empire) (its a scientific/historical term, not its actual name) in the expense of the real name (Roman Empire) the state used in all of its official diplomatic contacts with foreign states, and the very name the citizens used to call their state with, to be in the top of the article, is indeed a very poor argument. Really, I fail to understand how do you find it logical to have the native/real/conventional/official name for that state be moved to sentences or bottom of paragraphs, instead of the article's top? Can you present me any other Wiki pages where a state has only its post-realm historiographical term be of top priority, at the beginning, and its real name be of secondary priority, lost in paragraphs and such? You wont. Even, for example, the article of the Holy See has this: the official/conventional name Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) instead of the more "common" term Vatican City, despite everybody today calling it with the name Vatican. Because Holy See is the official name of that state (or conventional in case of Medieval era's states) in the top of its page. Please... Seriously now... A state's real name should be on the top of the article... --SilentResident (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Byzantine Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cyprus-Egypt-Greece 2014 Tripartite Summit in Cairo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cyprus-Egypt-Greece 2014 Tripartite Summit in Cairo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Image's distribution rights are per DefenceNet's free distripution, I have failed to find any specific permission notes regarding the use of the specific picture. In case a free license is not applicable here, I do not know what license could be the most appropriate for the image in question. --SilentResident (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link to the page "Kingdom"[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip II of Macedon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom (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) 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is natural for the monarchical states to be pointing to the relevant disambiguation page Kingdom. Because All the DPL notes so far made no practical sense at all, I am disabling DPL notifications from this talk page. --SilentResident (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to the article of Crete[edit]

Hi SilentResident,

I saw your post on Dr.K.'s user page and I've made some changes to the article of Crete. Specifically: I've reworded the lead to distinguish between the island and the region; moved the region infobox down to the 'Administration' section; added an infobox for the island at the top; and moved some of the pictures around. Let me know what you think, and thanks for the vector maps. Alakzi (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Alakzi! I like how you have done it, thanks for your contributions, the leading infobox in the page is now much better fitting. Well done. As for the administration section, I still believe it deserves to have its own separate article, as it is a completely different thing and covers territories outside the island of Crete. What do you think? I could really like to hear your opinion on the matter.--SilentResident (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It does seem counter-intuitive that the region, which is larger in size, is contained in the article of a smaller piece of land. If a separate article would aid in the understanding of the topic, then it is probably worth having. Alakzi (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire VS Eastern Roman Empire name[edit]

Hey, SilentResident, I know it's a little late to mention this, but I saw your edits on Byzantine Empire and I agree with them. I think you're right that it was the Roman Empire and that it's citizens refereed to it as such, and that should be made more clear in the lead. It's unfortunate that anyone who tries to change things always gets reverted. Anyway, thanks for everything you do on here SilentResident, keep up the good work. I Feel Tired (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of any help. But take my fixes with some grain of salt and do not expect my fixes to stay in place for a long time, as some users around there, especially of German nationality, are obsessed with separating the Byzantine Empire from its Roman identity, by depicting them as two completely different empires. The reasons for that are unclear, but may be related to the fact that the term "Byzantine" was invented by a German historian, but wasn't limited into just the term's usage for historiographical purposes only, but was extended it to cultural/administrative ones. But this might not be the case, as there have been a matter of philosophical debate which has its sources to the belief of some German Wiki users for the Holy Roman Empire as being the spiritual successor of the Roman Empire. It is actually sad. And this affects how the Wikipedia presents the facts and at which order. --SilentResident (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
SR, your remarks about "some users around there, especially of German nationality..." sounds like a personal attack on FP, which is not appropriate here. Please stick to the substance. --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal attack agains't who? And what is a FP? I personaly do not know any users of German nationality but you missed the point of my wordings. When I am saying "some users around there, especially of German nationality" I am talking about the bitter fact that users of German nationality in the school are taught a different approach on the medieval history of the Eastern Roman Empire, following the work of the German historian Hieronymus Wolf, titled "Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ" and which is widely adopted by the mainstream German academics and is now reflected on various Eastern Roman-related pages. If the users whom I have been in disagreement with, regarding the naming policies for the ERE, are of German nationality, then it is just a coincidence. (which ironically proves what I am saying). As you see, I am not targeting or attacking someone, just I am referring to the old dispute between German and Greek academics who argue over the double standards on the naming policies used for both ERE and WRE. In case you believe I offended you or someone else, then I apologize. I should have re-worded or at least clarified the meaning of the phrase in my previous post, to avoid any misunderstandings. --SilentResident (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
FP = Fut.Perf., a German editor with whom you have had disputes over terminology for the Byzantine Empire.
Wolf is an important classic in Byzantine historiography, along with Gibbon, du Cange, and later authors like Paparrigopoulos, and so on, but any modern historian (regardless of nationality) who took any of them at face value would be laughed out of the academy. Some schoolbooks (both German and Greek--see for example the analyses of Y. Hamilakis) no doubt reflect obsolete theories, but claiming that "mainstream German academics" are in the thrall of a 16th century author is peculiar. --Macrakis (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How can you know that Future Perfect at Sunrise is German? Did he specifically stated his nationality to you? Even if your claims about his nationality are true, then again this doesn't change anything. The fact remains - there is a debate, both inside Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia, regarding the naming policy of certain factions, such as the ERE. I am historian myself with decree, specialized on social affairs and diplomatic affairs of historical factions, and I know that not every colleague agrees on the onomatology of the ERE (a proof for you is me) - some historians may call it Byzantine, while other historians may call it ERE. You can not deny that there can be different approaches by people of different opinions on this matter. Yes, I have had a debate with Future Perfect at Sunrise over the naming policy of the ERE, while I agree with him on other maters, and I can say this is very natural. We have democracy after all. And just in case, let me highlight that one of the basic rules of Wikipedia is to call the states, both current and past ones, by their actual names, alongside historiographical ones, and not the historiographical one at the expense of the real one. It is all about calling things by their actual names. For example, could you call the Western Roman Empire simply as "Ravennian Empire" just because its capital was moved from Rome to Ravenna and could be more of a historiographical term than a real name? That is, more or less, the problem with the ERE. There is a debate on how can the Eastern Roman Empire be called, Byzantine or Roman, and how the fact that Rome wasn't its capital, can have weight on its name. As you see there, unless the Wikipedia administrators declare a naming policy for the empires of old, such as ERE, it is natural that there can be no absolute consensus in giving ERE's article the name Byzantine. Although there is no consensus, currently, there is a majority of people inclining towards the term Byzantine over ERE. While I accept this consensus by the regular editors of Wikipedia, it could be best if we have a naming policy adopted by the Administrators. --SilentResident (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I just checked the user Future Perfect at Sunrise's page, but there is no statement or information about his nationality. If did he reveal it to you, did he too gave you permission to reveal his nationality to me and to the public? I have to warn you in any case - it may be impolite to reveal by yourself the nationality/personal data of other Wiki users without their permission. Please be careful. Thanks :) --SilentResident (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
FP's user page shows his mother tongue as German. Presumably your point about H. Wolf is about the German-language literature, not about the literature in the Federal Republic of Germany, so even if he's Swiss or Austrian or something, the point remains.
"there is a debate, both inside Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia, regarding the naming policy of certain factions, such as the ERE": I assume that by "faction" you mean "state" or "polity". Everyone knows that neither "Byzantine" nor "Eastern Roman Empire" was the contemporary name, and that ERE is an accurate description. From there on, WP is inherently conservative about naming -- it waits until there is a consensus in the serious/scholarly literature. If there is still a "debate", then apparently there is not a consensus. I can't get too excited about it.
You say you are a "historian with decree". That is not a term used in English. Is this a misspelling of "degree"? And what do you mean by it? Do you have a doctorate in history? Are you a professor at a university? Do you publish scholarly research? Or do you mean that you have an undergraduate degree in history and are interested in it? In English, we would not normally call that a historian.
"Onomatology" in English usually means 'the study of proper names'. I think you mean 'terminology' or 'nomenclature' or simply 'naming convention'.
" the fact that Rome wasn't its capital, can have weight on its name." Huh? The name "Roman Empire" is a convention. As Voltaire said, the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. The emperors of Russia were called czars, i.e., Caesars, though they were not Roman. The Caribbean is called the West Indies. etc. etc. Logic is not the issue.
Your statement "unless the Wikipedia administrators declare a naming policy for the empires of old, such as ERE, it is natural that there can be no absolute consensus in giving ERE's article the name Byzantine" makes no sense. Please look up "consensus" -- it is not something that can be imposed, and is generally not "absolute". Anyway, administrators on Wikipedia have special administrative powers, but no more authority on the content of articles or to "declare a naming policy".
Best, --Macrakis (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Mother tongue means nothing about the nationality of a person. The person in question, may very well be Swiss or Austrian, not really German. It is better to refrain from making assumptions regarding other people's nationalities. As for -logy thing, I am not talking about terminology, I am talking about onomatology. The case about ERE isn't really a naming convention issue, although it may seem as such. Nope, it isn't misspelled. When you complete the college or university, you are given a degree, a certificate, lets say a diploma. Nope, I am not a professor, it is false to assume that all the people with diploma in history are professors in their job. The degree testifies that the recipient has successfully completed a particular course of study in history, not what job the recipient does, even if many people with a degree in history become professors. If I am not mistaken, actually there have been naming policies in Wikipedia (like in the case of the Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia naming issue) and a such naming policy regarding certain Native American Indian articles, or ERE could greatly help, although I may be wrong, since I do not know about the procedures/conditions for adopting such policies and when/why exactly such policies are adopted, besides dealing with the frequency of edit wars. Also I am still looking for the Wikipedia rules regarding the priority of real name over historiographical terms for these factions. I admit I have some ignorance regarding some aspects of Wikipedia, and there is still a lot for me to learn about Wikipedia before I can ask for anything or delve deeper into this matter. I appreciate your interest, and I know there is still alot to be discussed, but I can't be of much help since I don't know Wikipedia very well, even after all those years of activity. (still learning...) :) --SilentResident (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Greece-Italy Relations details[edit]

You recently reverted my edits to this article. I have explained my edits on the talk page, and would be interested in your reply. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The removal of both edits and sources added by other users without a good explanation, is unacceptable, so your edits have been reverted. I replied to you in depth in the talk page of the article Greece-Italy Relations --SilentResident (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
The modification (including deletion) of edits added by other users is hardly unacceptable; it is part of the normal bold, revert, discuss cycle. I thought my edits were clear improvements, you disagreed and reverted, I have started explaining my edits, and I trust we will now discuss on the Talk page to hammer out a new and better version. --Macrakis (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Future Perfect reverted anything, which I had to re-revert, but improve further but removing the information that falls under the scope "tone" you have described in the Talk page. I think the page is much better when it has more info rather than lesser info. And in fact, I added some more info on the Culture section which was totally lacking or absent after the last changes. --SilentResident (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Re "the page is much better when it has more info rather than lesser info" -- it depends. More good, relevant, well-organized, well-written, and well-sourced info, sure. More words or fact-claims? Not an improvement in itself. --Macrakis (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, but the point you are missing here is that the Greece-Italy relations page was an underdeveloped article already, and the fact that some people keep deleting massively anything, without any regards to the content, isn't helping. While there needs to be quality, also there needs to be more information about them too. - Also, the lack of the information on the article isn't the only issue here. While doing edits, it is important that these edits improve quality rather than deteriorate it. For example, the leading paragraph lacks some quality wording after all these edits. So, lets see how can get the leading paragraph "well written":
"Greece and Italy enjoy strong relations. They cooperate in many fields..."
has been changed into:
"Greco-Italian relations refer to bilateral foreign relations between Greece (link) and Italy (link). The two countries enjoy strong diplomatic relations, cooperate in many fields..."
It is very important that while we improve the articles to include more information for the sake of the readers, also help the readers in their navigation across the wiki. For example, adding links to the pages of Italy and Greece in the article itself (aside from the links present already on the infobox's map), doesn't hurt. Also the better wording helps the overall quality of the article - because quality information isn't sufficient by itself if not presented on the article in a proper manner. So I applied the aforementioned changers to the article, and I can say, the article is very good and more professionally-looking. :) Thank you for the help, and really, after your and my edits the article is much better than it was, lets say, a week ago. I really appreciate when I see underdeveloped articles getting more attention. --SilentResident (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind, there is WP:Refers to, so the above example is null. My apologies. :) --SilentResident (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Albanians[edit]

At the "Albanians " article it says that the total number is obtained as the sum of the referenced populations (lowest and highest figures) below in the infobox.The highest sum is 12 million,while you put it 8.5 million.Can you explain why?Rolandi+ (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In the infobox where the total population of Albanians worldwide is displayed, if you check the Turkey section of the population figures, you will notice that someone changed the official and sourced number of 1.300.000 Albanians living in Turkey to 5.000.000, without providing us with a reliable source explaining this sharp increase of the Albanian population in Turkey. This raised suspicions as 3.500.000 citizens is not something that appears magically. It is a very big number, and therefore this forced me to conduct some research on this matter. What I found is that, the sources, both official and unofficial ones, all agree that the Albanians in Turkey are nowhere near the number of five million. For example, the 2012 edition of the CIA World Factbook estimates that the Albanians in Turkey, or Turks of Albanian origin number mostly 500,000 - 1.300.000. Also, a 2008 report from the Turkish National Security Council (MGK) says that approximately 1,3 Million people of Albanian ancestry live in Turkey. For more details, you can check the page in Wikipedia dedicated to this matter: Albanians in Turkey. Given this, I can not understand how did the 1.3 million Albanians in Turkey rose magically to 5 millions like that. The user who put the claim of 5.000.000 Albanians in Turkey, will need reliable sources to explain this sharp increase of Albanians in Turkey. The 5 millions is a dubious figure, since recent demographic or political events in the region do not explain this sudden and sharp increase either. If someone believes that there are really 5 million Albanians in Turkey today, will have to provide us with more reliable sources. So far, the official Turkish sources, as well as the unofficial foreign sources, place the number to about 1 million and 300 thousands. --SilentResident (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that there are some sources that put the number at 500000 doesn't mean that 5mln in false.It refers to all albanians,even to the turkified ones (they have albanian ancestry).500000 can speak albanian fluently,1.3 mln indentify themselves only as "albanians" .Rolandi+ (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have read sources that claim there are 8.000.000 Albanians in Turkey today, but this is not the point here. You need to provide reliable sources because the number of 5.000.000 is very big and not confirmed by any government or NGO. The Turkish authorities and the NGOs, and the American agencies place the number of the Albanians, including the Turks of Albanian ancestry, around 1.300.000. Can you please give us reliable sources proving that there are really that many more Albanians in this country?--SilentResident (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The American agencies (CIA FACTBOOK ) use (or better said cite ) the Turkish authorities ,which are part of turkification policy.However thaose figures are included at the article as part of Wikipedia's neutrality ,also there is the reference about 5 mln.It is from a well-known author and scholar.Also please don't use Wikipedia as a source.Don't delete well-established informations without concensus.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This is your personal view and this does not validate your claims. You still need provide us with reliable sources that back your claim for 5.000.000 Albanians living in Turkey. Such big population figure differences need to be sourced. Please can you provide us with reliable sources? In the article's talkpage? Thank you. --SilentResident (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN/I Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring on Albanians. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Albanians 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. ~ RobTalk 21:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My deep apologies, breaking the rules was not my intentions. To those interested in following the events: I just tried to prevent Rolandi+'s POV edits to the page, while I was I was asking already for a moderator's help in dealing with pesistent POV edits, (and that only after the talk failed and Rolandi+ insisted on his POV edits). --SilentResident (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The informations that you deleted weren't added by me,so don't lie!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Who said you added? I said you edited. Please read more carefully before accusing others of lying. And my advice to you: next time please try using the Talk page before going into edit wars with others. --SilentResident (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Albanian Population in Turkey[edit]

You said that that source is POV (you can't say/delete that without concensus).Anyways ,the best thing to do is to talk. See here: 1. 2. 3. This means that there isn't only one source that says that there are 5 million albanians in Turkey. So go and put the highest number of albanians in turkey at 5 millions.And the next time use the talk page and concensus when you want to delete informations,especially when they are referenced.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but my talk page isn't the appropriate forum for improving the article. Please post your findings to the article's relevant talk page where the matter is discussed. And a concensus can be achieved when all parties agree on a solution while taking in account their worries and concerns. And so, I brought the matter to the article's page but you have ignored it. Is that my fault? You have ignored the article's talk page and resorted to edit revert war. Your first respond to the talk page came after the edit revert war was over. Check the Talk Page's history. I brought the matter here around 22:32 of 14 July 2015‎ but, you, instead of going to the talkpage, you have chose to continue the edit revert war to the end. Your initial response in the Talkpage was after the edit war, at 23:00, 14 July 2015. Is that my fault that you are resorting to edit wars rather than using the talk page? Please put the facts straight. --SilentResident (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. The thing that i would say with assistance is to remind some editors (though much has already been discussed about Rolandi, as you would have read my posts in the administrators board there are other editors) to stick by the rules and not to be dismissive about sources that are peer reviewed because they are not to ones liking, yet relevant to the article.Resnjari (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)