/Archive 30 August 2009 up to 29 December 2009

OK Megistias, I really don't understand why do you keep on pushing some ideas in your Illyrian related maps? We had discussion about it a long time ago and I can see some other people have criticized your work too in the meantime. Do you know that your map File:Illyrians.jpg is taken for a joke in some specialized history forums where many experts write.

Why do you mark Liburni as Venetic people? There is no any evidence of that kind. There is only possibility that in the very northern Liburnia there was presence of Histri, who were close to Veneti (Veneti-like names). Why do you mark Iapodes as the Celts? Why do you spread wrong info about "Celticized Dalmatae"? Can you understand difference between: being a Celt/being Celtized/having material exchange with the Celts??? Are you aware that for this "Celtization" you use almost 90 years old theories about "Illyarian Hallstat", abandoned 60, 70 years ago?

Now I'm watching this map File:IllyrianWars.jpg. What is that? I'm shocked. What is that territory bordered by brown line (Demetrius of Pharos)? What is yellow territory (Teuta)? Zenanarh ( talk) 12:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Do you have some difficulty reading this for example?

• Wilkes, J. J. The Illyrians, 1992, ISBN  0631198075,page 183,"We may begin with the Venetic peoples, Veneti, Carni, Histri and Liburni, whose language set them apart from the rest of the Illyrians" Megistias ( talk) 19:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I am shocked as well by your odd claiming talk that the Iranian Medes had something to do with the Thracian Maedi.And on a 3 years old discussion at that. Megistias ( talk) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I ve made the maps simpler and more neutral regarding celt issues but i will work on them further when i can. Megistias ( talk) 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll start discussion in Liburnian language, about this, Wilkes is certainly not top authority on the matter and using only his specualation (citation from his book often used by you is not a fact) produces imbalance in related articles. My idea is not edit warring or pushing one idea against the others. We should cooperate on this. Zenanarh ( talk) 10:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

About the Medes, well, actually there is possible connection. There's a large chance that the Medes contributted to ethnogenesis of the Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks in one episode of Indo-Europeanization in the Balkans. Zenanarh ( talk) 11:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I am not sure you're helping matters at User talk:Daesitiates. The user is clearly upset about some activities by other users; you are possibly among them. Let's focus on the content rather than what someone's agenda may be. I think the content issue needs to be resolved on the page where the disagreement exists.  Frank  |   talk  15:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

ok, but he has never used the talk page and his edits are seen as inappropriate by other users as well. Megistias ( talk) 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not making any judgment on his edits or whether or not others find them inappropriate. I told him that admin intervention is not appropriate and he needs to learn to find WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page of the article in question. That's a first step. If that is tried and it fails, there are other steps to follow in dispute resolution.  Frank  |   talk  15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Megistias,

I am kindly inviting you to cooperate so we can find some compromise on the text entitled " Ardian", for none of my 16 friends could see what was wrong with my contributions ( enclosed below) to "Ardian" and why you removed them.

I am inviting you ti once again read my additions that you have been continuously deleting and realise that they have no political connotations nor do they offend, assault or undermine anyone in any way. I am too old for this son. I guess you could show some respect to people who are much older than you and people who have been dealing with these issues academically , doing their best to keep it at the academic level, with as little as possible political interferences.

There are many people clled "Ardian" and when they want to show their parents, their children or their grandchildren the meaning of their name, the last thing they want to read is som epolitical background to that name, like" Thisi i sone of those imaginary Illyrian names imposed to Albanians by communist regime in Albanian". Communism vanished from Albania decades ago my son, and most Albanians (me being one) themselves prefer Ilylrian and Albanian national names. Nobody imposes that on us.

I guess Albanians DO  have a say about their own culture, right?

Why isn't there any Englishmen out there deleting contributions to some Celtic name? I'll tel you son, because he is civlized enough to understand that nationalism is a disease that needs to be cured.

So for the sake of those civilized values, as a person much older than you, I kindly ask you to read again my contributions that you ar so much upset about (for reasons known only to you) and reaize that my contributions are in no way offending or undermining anyone, nor, most importantly, are they lacking reference.

Here are the contributions you deleted. Please, read them and tell me whcih parts you don't liek and why so we can find som ecompromise.

Again, please bear in mind that the text "Ardian" , the way you left it on Wikipedia, DOES look indirectly discriminatory to Albanians, for two reasons:

1. It uses the undermining languge " the imaginary Illyrian names", and 2. It only emphasizes negative aspects of the history of that name ( "Illyrian names being imposed by communists", which dopes not affect the fact that Albnainas themselves prefer Ilylrian and Albanian national names. After all, they do not need to ask for someone's permission in order to do that, right?).

"Original Illyrian names found in the literature, as well as names made up of Illyrian words and etymologies in general, are still among the most preferred personal names among modern Albanians today, along with names deriving from Albanian language, the Albanian national names like Bardh/Bardha, ('white', 'pure', 'fair'), Hyll ('star'), Bora ('snow'), Dita ('daylight'), Drita ('light', 'illumination'), Gonxhe ('rosebud'; first name of Mother Teresa), Lule ('flower'), Pellumb ('dove'), etc. Indeed, there are some obvious similarities between the supposed Illyrian words (names of persons, places and things) and Albanian ones, such as the name of Illyrian king Bardylis and Albanian word for white, 'bardh', the name of Illyrian king Hyllus and Albanian "(h)yll", for 'star', Illyrian deity Bindo and Albanian 'bind' ('convince', 'make believe')[3], and dozens more. It also seems linguistically plausible to connect the name of Ardiaei with Latin "Ardea", meaning "Heron"[5]A small town located in the area adjacent to Neretva river (which was precisely the original homeland of ancient Illyrian community of Ardiaei)[6] is called Čapljina, deriving from "Čaplja", which in former Serbo-Croatian language (nowadays divided into Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin and Serbian) means precisely "Heron". This theory opens up many possibilities for the interpretation of the origin of this name, such as heron being present in significant numbers in that area since prehistory, and thus influencing the etymology, for example.However, this theory is challanged by the fact that the Ardiaei (although in a different form, Ardiaioi) were mentioned long before Romans conquered Illyrian lands, like, for example by Theopompus in the fourth century B.C., or in reference to their warfare agianst Phillip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great. Vardiaei, one other variant of Ardiaei bears similarity with Greek word word ‘vardia’, meaning ‘watch/duty/shift’ (‘guard’ implicit), and if we allow for a possibility of Ardiaioi being some corrupt version (misspelling) of 'Vardaei', this may seem as a plausible explanation. [7] However, further research is undoubtedly necessary in order to reach any tangible conclusion.

There are some claims too, that in one of the ancient sources Ardiaioi was actually a mistaken emendation of Autariatae[8]. This is however most likely to mean that the author had mistaken Autariatae for Ardiaioi, rather than implying that they are one and the same people, for the fact that Ardiaioi were mentioned repeatedly and separately from Autariatae in several different ancient sources, as mentioned above. Whatever the case, the fact is that Ardiaioi (the Greek version of Ardiaiei or Vardaei) were mentioned before Romans came to exert any influence, including the lingusitic one among Illyrians. This so far rules out the Latin etymology of Ardiaiei, based on Latin 'ardea', for 'heron'."

All of them were well referenced, as you know.

I frankly hope we will manage to find a compromising solution, although, as I said, NONE OF US HERE see what was wrong with the above addition that I made. ( Daesitiates ( talk) 15:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

How about creating a version of the article at User:Daesitiates/Ardian, complete with references, so it can be discussed there? (Or a suitably named page; I'm not certain which article you are trying to make these edits to.) And remember, this isn't about you and your friends; it's about reliable sources  Frank  |   talk  16:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Fair enough Frank, I will proceed with that instantly, although I might have to ask for your patientce if I am stuck somewhere in the process for, like I said, I am sure I am much older than many of you guys here and I may not be as skillfull with Wikipedia. Ok. I will propose my version on that page. ( Daesitiates ( talk) 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daesitiates ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You have never used the talk page for years.And your edits were unconstructive. You removed references among other things. Megistias ( talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

megistias. I may have never used talk page, but like I said, I am decades older than most of you. Trust me, you can al lbe my children.in other words, i am not as skillful as you kids in wikipedia and computer skills in general.

"your edits were unconstructive". Excuse me young man, but isn't this statemen slightly overambitious? I would be truly grateful if aou enlgihtened me on how my edits were unconstructive. After all, how constructive is it to change the text on a national name making it look like a mere political criticism?

is there any positive word you said about that name in that particular text or anythin positive you said about Albanian culture. Out of so many references to Albanian names (and culture in generaly) you only imposed the negative one, the one obviously undermining Albanian culture by calling its names repertoire some communist construct imposed on people. Now, how constructive ( let alone unbiased) is that?

Image me going to some Greek name page and doing what you did on "Ardian"? Now, how fair would you consider that to be? I am sorry to say this, but you more than obviously have some serious unresolved issue in your attitude towards Albanian culture.

Finaly, I would be grateful if you remind me when and how I remeove references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daesitiates ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please, sign your comments and take some time to read wikipedia rules. Megistias ( talk) 17:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This discussion is pointless. Let's focus on content moving forward. No need to look at the past; let's just get it right in the present.  Frank  |   talk  17:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You're right Frank. I 'm sorry. I just flet I needed to tell the truth, but yes, let's move ahead now and see what we can do. I proposed my version on User:Daesitiates/Ardian as you advised. I had a little problem though for I couldn't use the references in a normal way so I copied them at the bottom. i hope that's not the problem. I think what matters is the content. ( Daesitiates ( talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)). reply

Further comment belongs at User talk:Daesitiates/Ardian. And remember: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  Frank  |   talk  17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Your comments here are not helpful, and I've removed them. The purpose of that page is not to discuss the main article and whether or not the content is appropriate for the main article. The first things to be worked on are formatting, references, citation, removing original research, and all the basics. If we can't get past all of that, nothing can go into the main article space.

If you read what I've written thus far, I've been saying let's work in a safe, sandbox-type area and get the content up to Wikipedia standards first. After we get there, then we can talk about achieving some kind of consensus to put it in the article. If you (or anyone) start attacking the talk page of a sandbox work with reasons why the material can't get into a main space article, conflict will surely arise. Let's focus on proper writing, sourcing, and other policies first. Better yet - let me work on that with him. Thanks!  Frank  |   talk  19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

i wont do anything to the sandbox but i redirected ardian to adrian name page that includes all such names.Clear and cut.Thats where the name derives from. Megistias ( talk) 20:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

And I have undone that redirect from Ardian. The article contains content specific to the name Ardian. There may be sourcing issues with the article itself, but that's not a reason to redirect it elsewhere.  Frank  |   talk  20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I hope I am following it up properly. I just want to say that I finally managed to resolve my referencing problem and I hope my proposed text at my user page:Daesitiates/Ardiaei is now ready for negotiations.

If I may just kindly ask, are the three of us supposed to negotiate the issue on this page (this one here belonging to megistias), my talk page (Daesitiates) or somewhere else? Please forgive my ignorance. I am ensuring you I am doing my best to learn on the go. Thanx for the patience.

-- Daesitiates ( talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Other than Frank gracioucly having the good will to guide you through article editing, and you following... i have to repeat that many of the things you suggest in the sandbox have been proposed by albanian editors over the years on many articles, and they did not go in.They are not encyclopedic, to put it politely. Megistias ( talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Daesitiates - please stick to the sandbox we are working in. That content is nowhere near ready to be reviewed by anyone for inclusion anywhere else.  Frank  |   talk  21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Megistias - perhaps you can take a look at User talk:Daesitiates/Ardian to READ only, please without commenting. I think you'll find we're peeling back the layers a bit and we will eventually be able to get to the content. I don't want to predict how things will turn out, but I hope you will watch as things progress.

If I may say, your approach doesn't look to be so inspiring either; if you're going to call into question another editor's actions, especially when it's clear you already don't agree...it's usually not going to wind up in a good result. To be specific, it really doesn't help when you tell someone that "many of the things you suggest...have been proposed...and did not go in." This is going to inspire someone to argue, not to work with you to achieve consensus. And I would point out that if there is to be any peaceful editing and avoidance of edit warring, page protection, topic bans, and maybe even blocks, both sides are going to have to learn to find something to agree on. Consensus isn't about getting someone else blocked or banned. It's about finding something acceptable enough to both sides that they'll both leave it in even if neither thinks it is the 100% "right" way to word it. We certainly still need verifiable citations from reliable sources. That's not in question. But there comes a point where we have to understand that the best result possible may be based on consensus rather than full agreement from every party.

Hopefully we can start achieving good results all around.  Frank  |   talk  03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I am not going to comment on the sandbox, but i have yet to find a single reference on which to base a reason to consider Ardian anything else other than a variant of Adrian. Megistias ( talk) 11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That is not the purpose of that sandbox exercise. The purpose is to understand how to edit, how to find sources, how to write an article, and how to discuss issues. Whether or not Ardian is anything more or less than a variant of Adrian is really quite beside the point. Eventually we will get to that.  Frank  |   talk  11:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Since you have been involved in Ilyrian related topics I have recently found these pictures, you might be interested to check: [ [1]] [ [2]]. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow, suddenly albanians appeared 500+ years before they actually did, Byzantine Greeks are gone and non-Greek populations somehow have "absolute homogeny", and have have over all the region. Megistias ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Your edits in Albanian (name) are ridiculuous, Arba and Olbonenses have nothing to do with Albanian name. Position of Olbonenses is unkown, some scientists think that Olbonenses were Aluatae - citizens of Alvona, so Olbona would be error in writing or distorted toponym. And both Alvona and Arba were in the north of Liburnia, where Histri, Iapodes and Liburnians were mixing - a region historically and geographically not linked to Albania and Albanians. It is like to say that name of Bangkok came from "bannana". Or from sound produced by John Wayne's gun: "bang". ;P Zenanarh ( talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I know they dont, since you are certain please remove it. Megistias ( talk) 13:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Olbonenses are not even mentiond in that article. What are you talking about? Megistias ( talk) 13:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

ha? you're right, sorry. Zenanarh ( talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Maps... I will, I've already signed myself in Commons, one of these days I'll remove them there and upload a few new ones. At the moment I'm working some other maps too, Dalmatae, Dalmatae Tariotes, Iapodes, Roman Dalmatia, Iron Age burial tradition in the Western Balkans,... Zenanarh ( talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

[3] Please see this revert I made to your contribution to Shkoder. Hope that's ok. user:sulmues--Sulmues 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The very next sentence says the same thing, only better. Megistias ( talk) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Maybe you can help. Except Hyllus in Greek mythology and Hyllus (river), there was also Hyllus Peninsula at the eastern Adriatic coast. See Tariotes. This toponym was recorded in the ancient Greek sources. Can you find some data, like citations,... Zenanarh ( talk) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well, i found Pliny,Naturalis Historia, Liburniae finis et initium Delmatiae Scardona in amne eo XII passuum a mari. dein Tariotarum antiqua regio et castellum Tariona, promunturium Dio-medis vel, ut alii, paeninsula Hyllis circuitu C, Tragurium civium Romanorum, marmore notum, Siculi, in quem locum Divus Claudius veteranos misit, Salona colonia ab Iader CXII. petunt in eam iura viribus discriptis in de...
• Nothing yet on ancient greek texts.Will keep on looking.Could it be that an greek mentions this in a latin language text?

Megistias ( talk) 11:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I doubt, I have some sources which mention ancient Greek sources exclusively, in my understanding those from Hellenistic era. Pliny the Elder and other Latin writers knew about this name. However, it seems that in the Greek scholarship there were some unsuccesful attempts to attach this toponym to Pelloponesus or some other peninsula in Greece. I'm thinking about new article: Hyllus Peninsula, so any data would be nice. BTW this is probably from where originally Hylleis arrived to Greece during the Dorian invasion. Zenanarh ( talk) 12:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Which Hellenistic writers? Maybe they write the name in a slightly different manner, a variance, thats why its no popping up so prominentely.But then there are some writers from that era that are obscure and hard to find. Got any names? Megistias ( talk) 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What I have is this: [4], text is in both Croatian and English, check ref note no. 2. Zenanarh ( talk) 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Stephanus of Byzantium 6th century AD, writes of the myth but adds in the bottom, though part of the text is not saved, "Υπερ δε τους Υλλους Λιβυρνοι και τινες Ιστροι λεγομενοι Θρακες. Και το θυληκον Υλλις προκειτα χερρονησος ηλικη. Μαλιστα Πελοποννησος, ως φασι …."

• Something like they are above the Liburni, and then of Istri that are called Thracians. And then Yllis chersonese, like a female. In the end he says that it looks like Pelloponesus but then the text is gone no more elaborating. Then he goes on on blah blah. Megistias ( talk) 12:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok from your link, it says "through the middle of the peninsula which Roman sources called Hyllus" so we know that Latin texts will most likely be using this term for it.And the reference inside it goes "According to an ancient Greek legend or, more precisely, propaganda, the Hyllus Peninsula was slightly smaller than the Peloponnese and there were 15 cities on it inhabited by barbarized Greek Hyllini, the descendents of Herakles’ son Hyllus (Suić 1955: 132-133; Katičić 1995: 91-98, 387-398; Mastrocinque 1996: 359-361; Čače 1995-96: 21-45)."

• This is most likely from Stephanus of Byzantium. The Herakles myth and some non-mythic data that a place with a similar sounding name existed. Megistias ( talk) 13:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok, the data from your link is Pliny + Stephanus as after the missing text he writes what the pdf-reference writes. Megistias ( talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Also, the only parallel data from Stephanus seems to come from De prosodia catholica, by Pseudo- Aelius Herodianus 180-250,. It seems as if Stephanus had copied the exact data that Pseudo- Aelius Herodianus provided.

• But i want to verify this more to be certain. Megistias ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Its the same, Stephanus copied from Herodianus.See also From political architecture to Stephanus Byzantius Megistias ( talk) 13:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Tnx :) Zenanarh ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Megistias what are you doing? After you have completely destroyed almost every Illyrian related article, now you keep on doing your special mission here too? You stupid arrogant little shit!!! Please report me!!!!! Zenanarh ( talk) 07:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

There is no need to report this editor, they have now reported themselves and I have blocked them for a week for disruption. I have no idea what this conflict is all about, but please don't rise to the bait. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I will check them the following days. Nice job by the way Alexikoua ( talk) 08:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem: The wanting names on that map are Zidon, Zoar, Arpad, Aram, Arphachsad, Mash, Carchemish, Calneh in the first area. There's one name in Canaan I can't make out, possibly Cheth. The word (Armenians) in parentheses is under Togharma. (Medians) should also be in parentheses. In the Sinai, you've got Ludim, Amalek, Edom, Midian and Sinim. Note that most of these are now thought to have been located outside of the Sinai peninsula. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh yeah, there's another area near the Caspian with the names: Kaspian, Kur R., Araxes R. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Great job on the map! I do like the green version, though. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have continued this debates you began on the Origin of ROmanians talk page with Pannonia. Please feel free to comment Hxseek ( talk) 22:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yep. Its a shame the way Pannonian is carrying on. He accuses me being biased by my personal beliefs on Kosovo, which is rediculous. I think he has taken a personal offence because I agreed with you that his maps are anachronistic, and that his source Atlas of World History is hardly awe-inspiring. I am currently reading Epirus Vetus. Archaeology of a Late Antique Province by Bowden. I think its a very good piece of work Hxseek ( talk) 04:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. I noticed that you have made a few hasty reports to WP:AN/I today. Please remember, frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong there. Please do not clutter that page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user there, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. The reports you filed today belonged on a different page, to which the following is a guide:

• To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator intervention against vandalism.
• To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.
• To report improper deletion or request undeletion, see deletion review.
• To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention.
• To request page protection, see requests for page protection.
• To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
• To report long time edit warring/abuse, see Long term abuse.
• To report suspected sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations.
• To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard.
• For evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ( WP:ANI)
• To request permanent deletion of dangerous personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests at WP:AN/I; reports there are visible to everyone.
• To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution.

Please ensure that if you file a report at any of those pages that you both read and follow all instructions listed in the respective header, as different noticeboards can have different requirements. Also, please observe that you must notify any user(s) about which you initiate a discussion WP:AN/I. You may use place {{ subst: ANI-notice}} on their user talk page to do so. Thank you. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thats alot of stuff :) Megistias ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yup! But super handy. It's always good to know where you can go to get the quickest, most effective resolution. Cheers! Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 02:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not continue reverting back and forth; rather, discuss this civilly on the talk page of that article. Thank you.  f o x  (formerly garden) 12:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have, Talk:Pashalik_of_Yanina , Megistias ( talk) 12:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Regards. -- sulmues ( talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Just to let yuo know, I've declined your protection request for now, you can find my reasons at WP:RPP.

Just to let you know, for future reference, that you should put new requests at the top of the list, as that's where admins will look for it. When the list is short like it is today, it doesn't make much difference, but it can sometimes get to 20 or more requests waiting action, and ones at the bottom may well get missed. Cheers! Ged UK  12:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thankou Megistias ( talk) 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Could you please respond here? -- sulmues ( talk) 23:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No, after this insult of yours diff, of course not :) Megistias ( talk) 23:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not about me! You deserve to stand there, because you have written all the Albanian related articles. -- sulmues ( talk) 01:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

And please display this

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

as you are a Grand Tutnum now. You deserve it! -- sulmues ( talk) 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Vjosë, [5], [6], [7], [8]. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{ unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 10:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Megistias ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

See the article talk page

Decline reason:

"See talk page" does not address the reason for your block. This incident was originally raised at WP:ANI and then moved to WP:3RR for action. WP:EW is clear in this regard, and protection of thr article for only 24 hrs is a minimum requirement at this time ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 12:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

---

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

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

Megistias ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

That was raised at originally raised at WP:ANI by me and then to be moved to WP:3RR for action for User Sulmues, by me, not for me.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. You were blocked for edit warring, it doesn't matter who reported who, you were edit warring. Kingpin ¹³ ( talk) 12:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

---

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

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

Megistias ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry i forgot myself and changed the article within too little time. But the talk page was used and still is on the issue.

Decline reason:

It's good that you've acknowledged your edit warring; please sit out the rest of your block and contribute constructively when you return. Glass Cobra 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

---

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

I am going to ask for a neutral person to settle this. You must work for the Greek government to have all the time in the world to revert to nonsense. I posted their names from the 16th century and you remove them? Why? How are they not relevant? Keep it Fake ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes ask a neutral person, thats a good solution. Just dont remove sources. The rest of your accusation or claim against me is ..... Megistias ( talk) 17:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there! You might want to be interested in seeing this, because you are involved. -- sulmues ( talk) 11:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:PANONIAN reported by User:Megistias (Result: Both warned), a 3RR case which you filed about the Dardani article. Both you and PANONIAN are edit warring. Try to get an outside view before you revert again. Sanctions are possible otherwise. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I reverted you on Zana e malit. You claim too much there without any sources. -- sulmues ( talk) 11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you revert me as IP on that article?-- — ZjarriRrethues —  ^talk 11:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I am not a "sock" account and could you answer my question?-- — ZjarriRrethues —  ^talk 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Megistias, when you add a statement like this, it is crucial to cite your sources... but you must also make sure that the sources actually say what you claim they do.

By consulting Google Books, we learn that Robert Elsie's book does not say anything remotely like the statement you attribute to him; there is one mention of the phrase 'romantic nationalism', in a context referring to a pre-existing cult. I have also searched Elsie's text for the phrases 'invented', 'invention', 'fictitious', 'fictional', 'fiction', 'spurious', 'fraud', 'defrauded', 'false', 'fake', and 'forgery', to no avail; 'constructed' does appear, but only in an architectural context.

While I understand your patriotic desires and cultural pride, I must remind you of the importance of intellectual honesty. DS ( talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That refers to the start of Ref Rilindija period of romantic nationalism and further on. Megistias ( talk) 09:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Also i get disconnected all the time due to my router and i can't edit, log on or even browse around.

That isn't related to what you were trying to add, in fact that has nothing to do with Albanian mythology.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  ^talk 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I reverted your edits [9]. You may be right about other names, but not Bardhyl, which has been around since Rilindja Kombetare time. -- sulmues talk contributions 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

[10] You were reported here.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  ^talk 12:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

When I wrote my initial comments in the spi I didn't checked your userpage, in which you inform about the 'log out problems'. Personally, I've changed 4 routers recently. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Citing from the book you use as a reference : The dynasty which buried their kings and queens at Radoliste was certainly that of Encheleae, whom Hecateus mentioned at that time. It must have been on good terms with its richer neighbor, since Radoliste and Trebeniste are only some ten kilometres apart. A corrupt passage in Strabo which was probably derived from Hecateus, may help us; for it seems to record the combination of the "Peresadyes" and the Encheleae to create a powerful state. If so, the Peresadyes was the name of the dynasty at Trebeniste. The name suggest they were Thracians.......The areas to the north and to the west of the lakeland differed from it in an important respect, the practice of tumulus-burial...The largest concentrations of tumuli, often numbering several hundred, were in areas attributable to specific Illyrian tribes: in the Mati valley, home of some Taulantian tribes; in Zadrima plain, belonging probably to the Grabaei; in Scodra region, home of Labeatae, in the valley of Black Drin, where Chelidonii lived. The burials were those of warrior rulers and their women, and the weapons and the ornaments buried with them were related not only to each other but to those in the tumulus-burials of Metohija and Kosovo, home of the Dardani, and of central Yugoslavia, where a distinctive Illyrian culture has been call the Glasinac culture. [11]

So the reference is clear about

1. There were two different dynasties at that time
2. The dynasty in Radoliste was that of Encheleae
3. Encheleae were the neighbours of Peresadyes
4. The dynasty in Trebeniste was that of Peresadyes
5. At some time they could (corrupt passage) have joined together
6. Their burial practice were different of other Illyrians
7. They are not related to Dardani whatsoever
8. Dardani are related to other Illyrians

No complain about Peresadyes being a thracian tribe, but the reference is talking about precisely about Encheleans joining(?!) Peresadyes at some time. How it can be used as a reference for Dardanians?! Moreover if you go two pages before that you can see the map where were Dardanians at that time. Encheleans are surely different from Dardanians and the article itself does not link Peresadyes with Dardanians, so stop it. Misusing the sources is a very dangerous practice and unacceptable Aigest ( talk) 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I mentioned your name in a proposal I made at WP:AE, in the thread about Kedadi [12]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Further to this arbitration enforcement request and by the power vested in me under Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions, you are hereby placed on a reverting restriction on all Balkans-related articles in the following terms:

• You may make no more than one revert per rolling 24-hour period on these articles
• If you do make a revert on such an article, you must post an explanation of why you have made the revert, to be at least 50 words and in English, to the talk page of the article, within 30 minutes of posting.
• "Balkans-related" is to be construed widely. If you are not certain whether a certain article is Balkans-related, assume that it is.

This restriction applies until the end of June. You may appeal the restriction to me, to WP:ANI, or to the Arbitration Committee. Stifle ( talk) 10:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You are invited to participate in this board, which I just created. Please feel free to bring there your concerns. Cheers! -- _Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Please also read this as you were mentioned. -- _Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 03:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You have been reported at WP:AE#Megistias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply

this edit is problematic and I reverted you. You can't make poor edits like that without discussing them first in the talk page. -- _Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I would also kindly ask you to answer here. Thank you! -- _Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco- Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!-- Codrinb ( talk) 17:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. Your input would be helpful at Talk:Zecharia Mayani.   — Jeff G.  ツ 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

So during my last 2 hour research into pages regarding Albania,the History of Albania and Illyria ,Illyrian tribes,and general history(over Albania and Illyria),your name comes up in most of them.I dont know if u are a admin on wikipedia,and im not bothering to find out.One simple question,what makes u qualified to discuss this matters,since first of all u are a citizen of a state that still has territorial dispute with Albania, a law of war.U dont seem to be the most objective person in this matters.Yet ur paws are present in every article or almost every one.I dont want a start a nationalist debate over albania,greece or whatsoever,just one simple advice.Stop disinforming people.( ArberVela85 ( talk) 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)). reply

The article Lucius Petronius Taurus Volusianus (consul) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bato of Dalmatia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bato of Dalmatia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Please help with the Wikipedia Review forum. קנרקםד צשדםמםד ( talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Illyrian Shepherd is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illyrian Shepherd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amatokos II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amatokos II until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chewings72 ( talk) 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Illurida wiki. Since you had some involvement with the Illurida wiki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 02:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The article Maduateni has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia article about Madytus already exists. This stub is about the people of Madytus.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rogermx ( talk) 17:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply