Talk:Epirotes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Albanians

What's the deal with adding Albanians as Epirotes? To my knowledge, Albanians never identify as such, but solely as Albanians, Epirus being equated with Greek irredentism in their minds. I have consequently removed them. --

talk) 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

What are you talking about? The article is about Epirotes in general, not Greek or Albanian Epirotes. You have no right to remove them.--Sarandioti (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't believe that there is anyone even in Albania that is thinking Ali Pasha as a "famous Epirote" and I don't believe that there is anyone even in Albania that is thinking Beçisht as "part of Epirus". Same with the others. I consequently agree with Athenean. --Factuarius (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People, the definition of the Epirote is "the native inhabitant of Epirus". Weren't they native inhabitants of EPirus? If you dont like that, its your problem. --Sarandioti (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epirus and Epirotes have been hijacked by greek and grecophone historians and ethnologist and consistently portrayed as greek just because they were close to hellenistic influence. This however does not make them greek and has never made them greek. This can be clearly shown even by the ancient hellene writers who never considered epirus or epirotes as greek. Neverthless as Sarandioti stated above, these people were native inhabitants of Epirus and as such were famous as well.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find me some sources that describe Ali, Qemali, Frasheri as "Epirotes", then we can talk, OK? --
talk) 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

You *actually* want sources that show that they were Epirotes? This is ridiculous. Epirotes is a term that refers to the inhabitants of the region of Epirus. Do you understand that EPIROTES DOES NOT mean GREEKS? Anyone native in EPirus is an Epirote. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "The Epirotes, better known as Epirote Greeks, are a Greek speaking people..." from The Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations, James Minahan, p. 577 [1]. --
talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Some more:[2]. --
talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

What is the point of that source?(which by the way is written by a greek author. The term Epirote is based on the GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF EPIRUS, not in nationality. Do you understand that? Epirote does not mean greek. Epirote=greek exists only in greek nationalism. Epirote is every native inhabitant of Epirus. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is totally POV and hillarious. It actually mentions 280,000 greeks in south albania. Funny fact is that in July 2009 elections the greek minority party took only about 35,000 votes. So I kindly ask you next time to provide us with some WP:RS source, and not greek and totally unreliable sources. --Sarandioti (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, bring sources that describe Ali, Qemali, and Frahseri as "Epirote", then we can talk. I am not interested in your OR. And will you please learn how to indent properly? --
talk) 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Athenean this is not OR, or an issue of sources. This is YOu not accepting the definition of EPirote. Epirote is every native inhabitant of Epirus. All of them "fit" the definition of Epirote.--Sarandioti (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are 100% reliable. You just don't like them, and have brought none of your own. I am not interested in your OR arguments. This is getting old. --
talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

100% reliable? Which one is reliable? The greek one or the 2002 book that speaks about 280,000 greeks in south albania, while the greek minority party got only 30,000 votes in 2009 elections? To you they may seem reliable but not to wikipedia guidelines. Epirote is every indigenous inhabitant of the area of Epirus. Do you disagree? --Sarandioti (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is prolonged only because of your irrational nationalism. Every time the same issue. --Sarandioti (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Now as usual you are going to wait till you can edit again, in order to not break the 3RR. So please stop recycling your unreliable sources and nationalist tendencies until that time. --Sarandioti (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just repeating the same old OR arguments, as well as engaging in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I've had enough of this nonsense. You have failed to make a case, and this discussion is over. --
talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Athenean how hard is it to comprehend that a native inhabitant of epirus irregardles of their ethnicity is an Epirote? It is only but logical. --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are trying to give false impressions Athenean. You proved nothing. If you dont like the state of the article, start a new one about Greek Epirotes. Have a nice day.--Sarandioti (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Athenean: Aigest, Sarandioti, I Pakapshem, a Pristina Kosovar and a Gechingen!? Albanian. This is not contribution, this is an Albanian crusade against you. Is there any way to avoid this demonstration of brutal force in POV-pushing to a wiki article? Just wonder. Sarandioti I told you before and you never answer me: Hitler was born in Oberösterreich but nobody thought of him as "a famous Oberösterreichian" but as a famous German or Austrian. I understand from your user page that you are an Albanian together with the other named and IP editors, as such can you please tell me honestly if there is anyone even in Albania that is considering Ali Pasha a "famous Epirote"? If no, it is the same in Greece, Germany or Ghana. Why really you insisting on that? It is the time to stop this war all over the Epirus related articles and starting to communicate together in well working articles not in battlegrounds. Friedly, --Factuarius (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factuarius I am truly not interested in your OR theories.--Sarandioti (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before major deletings. Is better to all --Factuarius (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check above we have already discussed it. I didn't delete anything, THe sources of Athenean were greek and unreliable, like the one talking about 280,000 greeks in albania, when at the same time in July 2009 the greek minority party was voted by only 30,000 people. So where is the reliability of that source my friend? --Sarandioti (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For God shake there are two ancient sources we have only those for the ancient history of Epirus who else can use? --Factuarius (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern geographic area of EPirus, do or do not live albanians, greeks, and aromanians??? WHy did you remove them??? DO you understand that EPirus is NOT inhabited ONLY by greeks?? In fact in Epirus(that is ALL of epirus) Albanians form the majority. Do you understand that simple fact??--Sarandioti (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't remove it. Look at the end of the article. I tried to leave it where you put it but it was impossible because there where no Aromanians during the ancient era, so I put there. Look by youself, I never rmv before talk with the editor. --Factuarius (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information about modern status goes in the beginning, not the end. Please move it in the beginning. And to avoid confusion add when beginning the paragraph about the ancient era 'In ancient times..". --Sarandioti (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless talk leads nowhere we reached a consensus, let's apply it to the article. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean check up. We reached a consensus that it will lead in Epirus(region). --Sarandioti (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the article

The solution to all these problems is simple: Get rid of the article. I keep saying this whenever these kinds of articles come up: sub-national and cross-national regions don't need separate articles about their inhabitants. "Epirotes" are people from Epirus, period. Everything that needs to be said about them can be said just as well, or better, in the articles about the region and its history. We need separate articles about Epirotes, Peloponnesians or Cretans just as much as we need separate articles about Texans, New Yorkers, Sicilians, Lower Saxonians, or Yorkshireans: namely, not at all. There is not a word of any encyclopedic value in this article, at all. Get rid of it.

No other region in the world has this kind of double coverage through geographic articles and "people of" articles. It is only Greek editors that, for some – to me – unfathomable reason, have developed a fondness for this pattern. It is unhealthy.

Incidentally, in the version I just found [3], the intro is ridiculously mangled, with modern and ancient coverage mixed up to the point of making no sense at all. I don't know, and hardly care, what the edit-warring issues were that led to this result, but please somebody remove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Fut here, get rid of this article, it brings absolutely no new info, it makes no sense and gives only nationalistic disputes and headaches. Aigest (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I agree too. Get rid of the article. Must one have admin rights to remove the article?--Sarandioti (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we can get consensus for it, we can just redirect it to Epirus (region), and merge any worthwhile material there or to some other article. I wouldn't propose outright deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for the Macedonians why not for the Epirotes? --Factuarius (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be I am not sure, by doing so we can just export the headaches there. Since there were a lot of population movements in that area, Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Slavs, Latin Franks, Venetians, Jews even some Turk colonists this will lead nowhere. Maybe it is better if we desperately want this article to mention only the original Epirotes of the Ancient times and the story ends there. This can make some sense of connection with old Epirus kingdom but that's all. Aigest (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe yes, maybe no. Many additions should be made in the Epirus article in order to present all aspects(aromanian, albanian, greek) neutrally(as neutral a consensus we can reach at least). Too many additions. Btw we have to remove the "epirotes" from the greece article linking here. Aigest that has already been done in the Epirus(region) article. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look I believe that before killing the article it is best to wait also for the Athenean position about it. I myself I am not sure about but I find it anethical to go ahead in absence of a major contributor. I believe everybody will agree about. Lets wait his position and see. Anybody to disagree? --Factuarius (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should get feedback from Athenean. As for the parallel cases, having the "Macedonians" article wasn't a good idea either, in my view. There's been pressure to have one for purely ideological reasons – in fact, most of the motivation was not much more than to have a pretext for colouring certain words blue in other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All eras are explained in the articles: despotate of epirus, epirus(region) etc. We already know what Athenean will say, so there's no point waiting. He will disagree with the removal of the article. Nothing more, nothing less. Let's move on, that's what I believe. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of the article as well.--I Pakapshem (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The encyclopedic reason to have this article is to be able to link

Epirote in some other article, so the reader will be able to ask what this rare word means. A redirect to Epirus will serve him perfectly well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. If this article gets deleted, then articles such as the ones about

Suliotes, Maniots, Arvanites etc. will have to go as well. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That is, I consent to the deletion as long as similar articles (see above) get deleted. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suliotes and Arvanites are linguistic groups. Maniots should indeed be merged with Mani Peninsula.  Andreas  (T) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The language of the Arvanites is nearly dead. Suliotes were Greek speaking as stated by most primary sources (i.e. sources by people who got to know them face to face) I've come across. All else is politically motivated fairytales. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suliotes and Arvanites are subsets of an ethnic group. Arvanitika is a sub dialect of Tosk Albanian, and as far as we know Tosk Albanian is not dead. Suliotes as stated by greek historians themselves were Albanian speaking. Politically motivated fairy tales seem to be what you are stating.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Pmanderson. Deletion of this article and redirection of the term to Epirus. And there maybe just add a very brief definition. Spis Ikke Gul, I suspect you are here only to harrass FutPerf as seen on your talkpage [4]. Please do not disturb us. --Sarandioti (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am here to, is my business. Got that? Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess this issue is over, as consensus was reached. Can one of you delete this article, and redirect the term "Epirote" to Epirus(region)?. --Sarandioti (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is over. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have blocked you back then instead of just banning you from the Macedonia discussion when you were causing problems. I will not make the same mistake twice. You were not involved in this discussion before, and I will not let you disrupt it now when it is almost at a conclusion. Tell me what your previous accounts are, or I will block you now. J.delanoygabsadds 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn... Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I decided to let you know of my previous accounts, here: User:I_Am, User:A_Grocery_Clerk, User:A_Good_For_Nothing_Yank, User:Who_Thanks_To_WP, User:Got_Some_Self-Confidence, User:AND, User:Did_Not_Commit_Suicide. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right then, you can tell me who you are via {{unblock}}. J.delanoygabsadds 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spis Ikke stop what you're doing, no one invited you to ruin our consensus. --Sarandioti (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Because the present form of the article is just 'unencyclopedic' doesn't mean we have to get rid of it. How about deleting Cham albanians? sounds samee to meAlexikoua (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Alexikoua I am not going to discuss with you. We reached a consensus. And we are NOT going to listen to nationalist rhetorics. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to think about the merge proposal. The question is, do the Epirotes possess a sufficiently strong regional identity that differentiates them from other Greeks to warrant a seaparate article? Whether or not a tag-team of nationalist edit-warriors does not like the article is irrelevant. However, until a consensus on this matter is reached, I will undo the highly disruptive changes by sarnidioti. He has removed sources, and generally messed up the article to the point that it is unreadable. It is impossible to have a meaningful debate on the merge/delete proposal as long as the article is in such a state. --
talk) 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree that the question of "separate identity" can be the criterion here. Berliners, Texans, Bavarians and Yorkshiremen also have highly distinctive regional identities. That doesn't change the fact that separate articles on any of these groups would be, at best, a duplication and, at worst, a POV fork of their respective region articles. Especially when the focus of the article is history. The history of the region is the history of its people; there's no sensible way of separating the two topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the history. I did notice that the history section here is essentially a duplicate of the history section over at
talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Folklore and culture, too, can easily be treated in the region article; in the highly unlikely event that it should grow enough to require factoring out, it can go into sub-articles like "folkore of...". Dialect articles would better exist as standalone articles focussing on linguistics alone, but it's unlikely such will be written – so far, we have no dialectological coverage of any region of Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and it is a good one. I also noted that there is no
talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The common practice is, I think, that we have articles for nation-level groups, and then again for ethnic/linguistic/whatever minorities, but not for regional subgroups of dominant majority populations in their own nation-states. The former usually have enough specific issues to be described that are distinct enough from the treatment of the territory they inhabit; the latter usually don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly seems to be the case for most western european ethnicities, although I don't think it's quite that clear cut. We don't have "Sicilian people" or "Bavarian people", like you're saying, but we do have an
talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, the Aragonese and Andalusians seem to have their articles because of their separate linguistic status. The Aragonese article defines them as a "nation or ethnic group" – I don't know if that's consensus or somebody POV-pushing, but if that's how they are generally viewed, having an article for them would be standard. The Andalusian article has less of a clear motivation, and doesn't seem to be very good. Pontians are clearly a minority (though not a national minority in Greece, obviously) – the point is there are plenty of things to be said about their social status, political status, history etc. that can neither be reduced to the history of any particular place they inhabit, nor does it belong into the article on their language. "Cham Albanians" and "Chameria" could probably be merged easily, as could "Northern Epirus" and "Greeks in Albania". As for linking "Epirote", those can easily be linked to the region, just as you would link "Texans" to "Texas" (if you needed a link at all, because an uncommon term like "Epirote" should generally be used only after "Epirus" has already been introduced in an article; otherwise "...from Epirus" would be preferable in most cases.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it, I am no longer opposed to merging, provided we also merge
talk) 18:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. I'm open to considering the Chameria case, personally; however, I don't do conditional "deals" across articles like that, as a matter of principle. Let's first get the one article right, and then the other, independently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, my previous post came out totally the wrong way. I didn't mean a quid-pro-quo or any such "deal", of course. What I meant was, after this, let's take look at
talk) 19:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, great. Shall we call it a consensus for merging, and ask an admin to redirect the page then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I would just like to wait until Alexikoua can weigh in a bit more and give us his opinion. He appears to be away but I will send him an e-mail. --
talk) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you understand that is not a trade market? Chameria and Cham Albanians offer different information, while Epirotes offers nothing new. I knew from the beggining that you would act on greek nationalism basis. We agreed on its redirection. End of Story. --Sarandioti (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean you provided clearly nothing to back up your views. Consensus was reached whether you like it or not. FutPerf can we actually proceed now?--Sarandioti (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FutPerf as did the majority of the editors and admins involved. Now let's get over this issue.--Sarandioti (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problems in this article arose the moment there was an attempt to present greeks as the only epirotes. Are there no Albanian or Aromanian native inhabitants in Epirus?Of course there are. Therefore to make this article correct we would have to copy many parts from Cham Albanians, Aromanians, etc. etc.. We would have an article which would offer nothing new, just summaries of many articles. That is a simple fact. Really what NEW is there to add in this article? Nothing at all.--Sarandioti (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? Of the users in good standing (which does not include you and I pakashem by the way), we have 4 agree (Future Perfect, PMAnderson, Andreas, and Aigest), one against (Alexikoua), and one on the fence (myself). What's the hurry anyway? I also suppose you wouldn't be opposed to merging
talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

What about them? They are minorities nothing to mention there(Cham Albanians, greek minority in Albania). See above, consensus was reached after proposal of PMAnderson about redirecting in Epirus(region), which is completely correct. And I am not going to answer to your personal attacks. We reached a consensus RESPECT that.--Sarandioti (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And like it or not, 6 were in favour of the proposition of FutPerf(the removal of the article and the redirection of the term to epirus(region), 1 was against, and you Athenean are postponing the procedure, just to avoid the application of the consensus. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarandioti, please take it easy. Athenean and I are trying to discuss stuff constructively, and we're going to finish off this discussion calmly and taking our time, before anything is done about moving the page. You are not helping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell him to stop reverting the consensus with Factuarious--Sarandioti (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Quoting single sentences is OK because this is regarded as fair use, but quoting whole paragraphs is against copyright rules. Also, this is not encyclopedic, we need concise information. I am going to remove the quotes.  Andreas  (T) 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok--Sarandioti (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unknown Ip editor vandalising reached consensus

With Factuarious we agreed on the ethnic groups mentioned in the article. Someone removed them. [5] Could some run a checkuser on him. I think he may be this Spis Ikke Gul Snø or Athenean.--Sarandioti (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither of these guys. I'm Peleus, pleased to make your acquaintance. - Peleus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.194.106 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and copyvio removal

I see Nishkid64 just protected the page, obviously on the

wrong version
, as always. I think we should nevertheless agree with AndreasJS that the overlong literal quotations in the footnotes need to be removed for copyright reasons. I don't know why, but Athenean apparently reinserted them in his latest revert.

Unless some good argument is brought forward why these overlong quotes are not a breach of our non-free content rules, I'll ask an admin to remove them while the page is protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version protected is totally wrong. I and Factuarious yesterday agreed on a version with Andreas remarks, and then Athenean reverted our consensus to his version. FutPerf this was the correct consensus with Andreas's removal of references [6] --Sarandioti (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a law of nature that the version protected is
ALWAYS totally wrong. So far, that law so inevitable it's not much use protesting against it. However, removing copyright violations might make a small exception from the rule of keeping the wrong version legitimate, I hope. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Can't you get an admin to revert it to the correct version?--Sarandioti (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly, because the Laws of Nature are such that that version would then immediately, by definition, become WRONG too. It's a strange and wonderful world, Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean and that IP editor should be blocked for 1 week, for ruining our consensus and edit-warring. --Sarandioti (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the days when admins were supposed to try and understand what is going on before using their buttons. --

dab (𒁳) 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, except for the overlong quotes, both versions actually seem to be equally bad, so in this case it really didn't matter overly much which got protected. And the most desirable outcome of the whole thing will be redirection anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still it was a consensus and the overlong quotes justify it. Either way, don't you think that we should move to redirection? Athenean just repeats his first arguments now,just to postpone the process.--Sarandioti (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above in the end of the Albanians section consensus between me and Factuarious is reached, below in references section Andreas explains his edits. And we are lead by our consensus to this version. [7]--Sarandioti (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the quotes. Anything else? Dbachmann, might I remind you that the Arbitration Committee found your "justification" for using the admin tools was just a bunch of malarkey. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1st part of consensus restored. 2nd part remains to be restored. Basically what the version above said about aromanians-albanians, we reached that agreement with Factuarious. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Redirection

Discussion will be continued here, so we can easily find what we're saying. 6(FutPerf, Aigest, I Pakapshem, Andreas, Sarandioti, PMAnderson) voted for the redirection of the article, and Alexikoua voted against it. --Sarandioti (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not supposed to be a vote, but now that Athenean has also conceded I think it's safe enough to call it a consensus. Therefore:

{{

editprotected
}}

Can an admin please redirect this page to Epirus (region), since we have a consensus to merge the pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At last consensus was reached :). --Sarandioti (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epirotes&oldid=1173631591"