User talk:TU-nor

As for the literal veracity of the "crematoriums" claim, Central Serbia did not get its first crematorium until 1963, when one was built in Belgrade. [8] Why? Because cremation is frowned upon in Orthodox Christianity and the demand for one was thus low. After World War I, the most ardent proponent of the practice of cremation in Serbia, Dr. Vojislav Kujundzic, lamented the fact that the Serbian military did not have furnaces with which to cremate the remains of its fallen soldiers rather than leave them to rot in fields (see Mates 2016, pp. 84-85 ). So, yes, I'm inclined to agree with Sadko that Tucovic's "crematoriums" reference was figurative and not literal. In the Western consciousness, mention of crematoriums and atrocities inevitably conjures associations with the Holocaust, so it's not surprising that individuals who might wish to draw a parallel between the Holocaust and atrocities in the Balkans have latched on to this particular quotation. I believe that any mention of crematoriums should directly be attributed to Tucovic. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?
You asked for a month to finish the RfC, I expected that you'll be the one who will formally close it?
We have to versions of the article, mine which has been changed to apease everyone, and to which there are no known critics, and the current one which lacks... Everything. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T*U (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I've done so, is it good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:_Donji_Kraji#Version_of_Article --Čeha (razgovor) 17:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Great, tnx :) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week after, nothing happened. We have two versions, and I would like to return the most voted one. Why is that an issue? This can go one like this for monts. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Great. And why is user Mhare permited to change the main article as he wishes, while my changes are disregarded? What shamefull and blunt breach of all of wikipedia rules. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the version, but the last edit was not an revertion, it rephrased all the quotes. That is also not allowed? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you think is the best way to deal with this sort of renegade deletion of sources? [9] [10] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you start RfC, maybe you have more experience with that procedure, thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Josip Runjanin did not consider himself Serb or Croat since there is no historical data who talk about it although Runjanin's daughter Wilhelmine Runjanin for their ancestors from father's side claimed that they considered themselves Croats". [1]^[2]Mikola22 (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know you are a bit rude Yes I made a mistake don’t be rude about it and just fix the article don’t be rude Please apologize Tee wew28 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright apology accepted Tee wew28 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your recent edits on Stepanakert article. Don't want to meddle in this topic too much myself and wanna know your opinion regarding official coat of arms of this city before making any move. The city is officially under Azerbaijani jurisdiction and it has different Coat of Arms than in the article. Please note that all UN countries, including Armenia officially recognize the city being part of Azerbaijan. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Verman1: As a precedent and in terms of maintaining consistency; please note that the other three "states with limited recognition" in the Post-Soviet region (Transnistria and it's capital Tiraspol, Abkhazia with it's capital Sukhumi and South Ossetia and it's capital Tskhinvali) do not include the de jure Coat of Arms. Also note, that the main pages of all four of these articles (including Artsakh) do not include any de jure emblems either, ie. the flag of Georgia or Moldova, etc... Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archives908: Parallels are not correct. As a matter of fact, all these mentioned cities don't have de jure COAs, also in de jure country language sections. Unlike Abkhazia or S.Ossetia, which are recognized by several countries, N.Karabakh is recognized not by any single UN member. --Verman1 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Verman1: I don't think you understood my earlier comment. Not one of the four Post-Soviet disputed republics have any de jure emblems. That includes Transnistria, which like Artsakh, is not recognized by any UN state. Archives908 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archives908: You're correct regarding recognition, but I disagree in terms of COAs. Tiraspol doesn't have a different COA under Moldovan jurisdiction, but Stepanakert does under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. This is the main point that needs to be reflected in the article to give it more neutrality. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Verman1: You talk about "neutrality"; if that is your argument then you would also have to add former Georgian emblems to the capitals of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and then all the other capitals of states with limited recognition like Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Taiwan, etc.. I'm afraid this will open up a Pandora's box full of edit wars. Archives908 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archives908: Please don't accuse me of something that I am not intended. Parallels between N.Karabakh and the above-mentioned countries are not valid since their capitals simply don't have any different emblems by respective de jure countries. --Verman1 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Verman1: I haven't accused you of anything. What you don't seem to understand is that all of these disputed states used to have former emblems in some capacity. Example: South Ossetia's flag was the flag of Georgia. Northern Cyprus's COA was the COA of the Republic of Cyprus prior to the Turkish invasion. So, if you are going to update one capital of a disputed republic- then for consistency- all should be updated. And this task will result in lengthy talk page discussions and countless edit disputes. Archives908 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archives908: The key word in your argument is "former". Azerbaijan doesn't have any former emblem for Stepanakert/Khankendi, the emblem used by Azerbaijan is contemporary and official, recognized internationally since the international community accepts the city being part of Azerbaijan. Former emblems of other cities are irrelevant, they can only be used in the History section of respective articles. This won't result in any kind of edit war or whatsoever. --Verman1 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How will there be consensus? when you teamed up and you are nationalist, how going to get a consensus, Just look at communication from local hero, uses offensive name for Albanians (Šiptari) (Шиптари) instead of sanctioning , you are removing the box Vestacka Nacija (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Vestacka Nacija (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Грција нема право за вето во ОН, но има во НАТО и ЕУ. Како во април, Грција ја блокира Македонија, и истото ке прае во ЕУ. Тука во Америка, Барак Обама ке биди пресидателот, и тој е со Грција на спорот за името. Македонија има поголеми проблеми од спорот, како бедност и (шиптарите). Поздрав. --Local hero 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) This is what he calls an offensive name of Local hero Vestacka Nacija (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not a language I understand. But if you think that a comment from

T*U (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

With whom to reach consensus, You're not realistic, if you don't want to help, don't even interfere Vestacka Nacija (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I will not change the site again, thank you for your help, Do it if you can Vestacka Nacija (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your edit in which you returned the other, unsourced version is objective by how? Čeha (razgovor) 06:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no intention of starting edit war. But this version, the one which was protected is the one that started edit war, santasa edits. Why we can return it to the neutral version, the one before santasa edit war? Please, check article history. Čeha (razgovor) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

And in all of that times, it was frozen on the first page of edit war. And every time was a talk that all of the versions were equal. But they are not, aren't they? Look for yourself, the article is in contrast to every possible wiki rule (conspiracy theories, blunt nationalism, pov...) and it's a shame that such a thing exist. Author of its current version, only made it so that due to its no worth it could be merged with other article... Have you even read the talk page? Čeha (razgovor) 00:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You do not need to have an opinon. You just need to check the dates. It should be a small job, right? But I perfectly understand you if you are not willing to do that. I'm going to open another part in discussion if no one is against the return of pre-edit war version, in an week, that should be enough for returning it,right? Čeha (razgovor) 04:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

editwar

}} is not meant for use in the way you have used it, it is meant as warning to be used on user talk pages only; 2) New talk page entries should be placed at the bottom of the page, not at the top; 3) You have not signed your entry.

I will try to help sort it out on the talk page. You will, however, have to state exactly what version you suggest reverting to. You can do that either with a link to that version or by giving date and time for the version in question.

Regarding your comment if no one is against the return of pre-edit war version, in an week, that should be enough for returning it, I will remind you that there are no deadlines in Wikipedia, so you can not interpret one week of silence as support. More to the point, you will have to consider what your next step should be if A) someone declare (within one week) that they are against returning to the version you suggest, or B) someone revert you after you have returned the article to your suggested version. In both cases, you will have to avoid an edit war, or you are back to square one. --

T*U (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Let them put their changes on talk page then. Tnx for edits... Čeha (razgovor) 22:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for reposting the ethnic map of Yugoslavia. Kreshnik Prizreni (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santasa is again starting an edit war. Without talk, without anything. I would expect of you to warn him, and return the page into previous condition. Čeha (razgovor) 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceha: I have seen what is going on. I have not found time to do anything, and I am not sure I will do anything at all. I am completely fed up with the whole article. Having spent so much time trying to reduce the edit war without any visible result is rather frustrating. I will see if I can make a last attempt one of these days. In the meantime I ask you to do one thing:

Please read again my comments (in small text) here and here as well as Eggishorn's comment on your talk page here. Then consider your edit here where you for the third time does exactly the same thing again. Will you please fix it yourself this time? --

T*U (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Look, I asked you for one small thing. There was a consensus, and I expect for everyone to uphold it. Try to put yourself in my shoes. Working hard on one article just to find that there are not the same rules for yourself and others. Čeha (razgovor) 00:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you asked me may is not a small thing. In contrast to most other editors on this article, I am not willing to enter an edit war. Therefore I cannot just return the page into previous condition without giving a thorough explanation. I do not have any more authority than any other editor, so my explanation will have to be good, or I will certainly be reverted. However, since you seem to believe I can make a difference, I will make a last attempt today or tomorrow.

But I am a bit confused. You say that there was a consensus. What consensus where? Please explain. --

T*U (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

PS. What about the thing I asked you to fix? --

T*U (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What thing, I didn't get you? As for consensus, it was in the version before ew... Čeha (razgovor) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceha: The thing is that you three times have placed new comments inside the closed discussion. The two first times I moved it out with a comment directly to you here and here, and you were also explained the same on your talk page here. I had expected that you would read messages directed directly to you. When you did the same again here, I asked you to fix it yourself. Since you did not, I have today moved also your third comment out here.

Just now I see that you have done it again. Don't you ever look at the things people try to explain to you? --

T*U (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I'm on my cellphone, and it behaves differently than a laptop. I read your messages, but didn't get the point. Čeha (razgovor) 02:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, as I said before, my smartphone acts funny. I edited the comments Čeha (razgovor) 02:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there is an RfC for a discussion on the Talk:Ante Pavelić talk page involving a topic discussion you took part of. Please have a look. OyMosby (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ask editor @Ktrimi991 [11] for opinion, editor @Peacemaker67 said his opinion[12]. Now I ask you too. Is it possible that this article Bookocide in Croatia exists on wikipedia. Some events from new Croatian history are compared with events from World War II and Nazi NDH? And this is proven by political pamphlets. Croatia is at war, communist, Serbian etc books are being thrown out of libraries and it’s actually same thing when the Nazis burned Jewish books. Okay if there are serious books and scientific papers which talk about it, but political pamphlets as evidence brings us into twilight zone as we read this. What can be done in this case? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

There seems to be one big ongoing dispute on Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I). ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Janusz Korwin-Mikke

Edit warring, original research

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please don't start edit wars and engage in a biased matter. If you have [legitimate] sources to back up your claims, please present them on the talk. The article you attempted to use as a source is not a credible organization, especially when citing an author who holds anti-Polish prejudices.^[1] You also claimed that he is generally regarded as far-right, when that is not true at all, given his Monarchist^[2] views (Monarchists do not fall on the far-right spectrum of politics). -69.121.10.105 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image used in the inbox covers the whole area that comes under Eastern Europe. (including Central Europe, the Baltic states, and the Balkans), with the countries of the Caucasus, and the transcontinental countries of Turkey and Kazakhstan.

Everything east of Germany and Austria is generally considered the Eastern part of continental Europe. And the image was a visual representation of what there is clearly written in the article itself about what countries come under Eastern Europe.

As Core Eastern Europe is generally Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Sometimes the countries of Central Europe, the Baltic states, and whole of the Balkan peninsula is also included in Eastern Europe. The image used in the inbox had the Core Eastern Europe, the extent of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and the transcontinental countries partially falling under Eastern Europe. And the inbox was better than the useless image of an apparent computer rendering of "Eastern Europe" where even Western Europe can be seen. So it was indeed appropriate for the article to have the inbox and the image used in it. Danloud (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to

T*U (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for looking at and trying to update the estimation of Venezuela to 2020, but 2019 instead (the national webpage authority current HTML static attribute on that page). Why it is not quoted the reference and link for Venezuela national authority as for the other countries adding this information of 2011-projection ? (Read "Población Proyectada al 30/06/2019 - Base Censo 2011") The current page is partially unavailable, for some browsers or locations, you have to turn ON/OFF cookies or do private navigation in some browsers to avoid the bugs on that webpage. That's why. In such case of partial unavailabity: Why don't we put for the case of Venezuela an UN projection stat since access is more stable and current one (2020) ? Please visit https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/1_Population/WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx and see that the current estimation is different: 28436066.

Please note the projection of Venezuela that was made on 2011 by the goverment was a static projection until 2050, this disrupts factual information. (see the webpage file http://www.ine.gov.ve/documentos/Demografia/SituacionDinamica/Proyecciones/xls/Entidades/Nacional.xls)

Best regards, --Santelli 08:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardollovera (talk • contribs)

Thanks for removing the ridiculous calorie figure from the baklava article. As far as I can tell, it is almost never useful to include calorie or nutritional information on composed foods, since recipes vary quite a lot. I wonder if we have an explicit policy about that... --Macrakis (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, in your edit on EastMed pipeline, you removed the pp-sock template. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but the page is currently in its first day of a one week semi-protection state. The template must remain at the top of the article. Thanks Curt ^内蒙 21:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Some baklava for you!

For reverting vandalism ― ISL fan|✉   13:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor

Majorly understood, so no more minor edits from me! :D --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friend Iranian writers in Wikipedia are writing chauvinist-minded articles. On the other hand, I cited Sami Frashëri's "Kamus-ı Türkî" as a source for my information in the Balkan debate. How can you see this work as "unreliable"? Ulpionz (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

My friend, I didn't put the blog page you referred to as Frashëri? I added that source for "Balkan Region in Turkmenistan". If it were as you mentioned above, you could delete that post, but why can you delete all the information? Why can you delete information without looking at proper resources? Please review the sources of what I wrote there. If a problem occurs with a resource, I would like to indicate that I will fix the problem Ulpionz (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

They came back with furry. I saw your dealings with them on the List of wars: 1000–1499 article. Seemed to return again, blocked and probably will pursue another IP. Tried to reason with them on their talk page but... [1] and here [2] . It never ends does it? OyMosby (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be followed my infobox edits undone concerning NDH specifically with a history of focus on NDH it seems in past months particularly naming. HERE Could you take a look to see if my edits were so off? Was NDH not a sebordinate of Germany? Putting them separate maximizes instead of minimizes their power and self sufficiency. Tomasevich notes they were installed as a Puppet state and were a quasi protectorate that would exist without German occupancy. Yet Chetniks were listed under Germany as well as other regimes. Yes they are not all equal. But we should go by classification not views on who is more involved or had more autonomy than others. OyMosby (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I see. Though there are only two other users that likely oppose my view but I will Bring it to that talk page. By the way I have some questions about Wikipedia standards. Instead of bogging down your talk page. Could I email you? OyMosby (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not. As I see it, I prefer all my dealings with Wikipedia to be above board and visible. --

T*U (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough, I wanted to ask how one archives their talk pages and archives inactive talkpages of various articles? Is it a program used? OyMosby (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the right person to ask, since I have been extremely lazy regarding archiving, but you will find info at

T*U (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay I will. What elareas are you mainly focused on then here on Wikipedia? OyMosby (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, read your adjustments to the page. I’ll move back then to mainland NL, it was just an offer. Cheers Vincent Vincbern (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It was better explaining Tarik289 (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Why did you remove the Midevil Principality Dutchy of Croatia but leave it in Serbia? This is well established an separate from the 7th century claim. It was founded later in the 9th century as is backed by many sources. The early 7th century foundation is this questionable one. Also DAI nor RS here but RS when you used it in the namaing of Serblia [Here]?OyMosby (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

T*U (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

TU-nor:I was simply asking why you removed the Dutch of Croatia which isn’t controversial and well known to exist as a first form of Croatia. I didn’t say anything about bad faith editing. I was questioning you reasoning for the removal of content. You should assume good faith in my questions as they are simply questions. DAI is a new subject to me and I didn’t see what was Controversial about the Dutchy of Croatia. An actual entity who’s existence is discussed in said article, it’s own article and multiple RS. So was wondering if there was issue with it’s mention. Being it was the first existing entity and all. The dates was all that was questionable. I’m surprised it was listed as 7th century so many years before being examined. Anyway I hope you do not take my questioning in a negative light. OyMosby (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@OyMosby: Actually you need not ping me at all when you write here, since I get an alert every time you edit my user talk page. (So I have just got 8 alerts!) However, the pinging did not work. The ping only works when you save it in the same edit as your signature. If you make a wrong ping and want to correct it, you have to sign the message again.

As for the Croatia article, it certainly was the date that was the problem. I am also surprised that the 7th century has been there for so long without anyone reacting. But perhaps we should not be surprised. There is a lot of "mythological editing" in Balkan-related articles. For some it seems to be important to show that "my people" have a long and glorious history. The longer and gloriouser, the better! Regards! --

T*U (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for all the alerts. I didn’t know it does all that. And didn’t know pining only works when signing the signature. Noted. Thanks! And yeah see [Here1] and [Here2] where we sea use of translation of primary sources to claim certain lands belong mainly to certain people.!OyMosby (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to insert tags in articles without having to type out the coding?

Also side note it seems your edit [Here] is met with reactionary edits [Here too] OyMosby (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Like sources needed, or tags for expansion of ideas in a sentence. I see them all the time and would like to tag some content to bring attention to other editors who might be able to help. You seem like a long time editor so figured why not ask you. What is your main area of Wikipedia? Also how do you archive pages? OyMosby (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Template:cn

. There you will find out what more you can put into the tag, like giving a reason: {{cn|reason=This does not look plausible}}.

Another time I saw someone use {{SectOR}}, which I found useful. By looking up

Template:SectOR

one can learn more of how to use it, and one also find links to other similar tags, like {{OR}} for inline use.

I prefer this way of learning by doing (or in this case, by copying others), but it is also possible to learn about templates in a more structured way. You could start with

how-to guide. There is also a template about templates! You might find that useful: Template:Inline cleanup tags

.

As for archiving, I am mostly lost at sea, since I never have felt the need for it. I know that some are very keen on archiving and are making nice archiving systems, but that is not me, I'm afraid. You can probably learn a lot at

T*U (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I just had a duuuu moment realizing there are wili oages about wiki tools haha. Thank you Tu-nor. OyMosby (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your main area of expertise on Wikipedia if I may ask. Like what subjects are you most into? Also thanks for taking the time to explain!

Please, stop anti-EU campaign in Wikipedia. That reversion doesn't makes sense, there's no active debate on talk page because it was archived (forced archiving because interest to close promptly the debate), that promptly vans everyone's say in the article. As the EU's resolve in the article is invalid because most country-related lists appear EU figures. Its clear you and I have a conflict of interest because you are on the opposite side and I in the aprovative. So I can revert your reversions until a neutral, third person can interfiere.--Manlleus (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Manlleus: There is no active debate on the talk page because when the matter was discussed earlier this year, there seemed to be a rather clear consensus against including the EU. No one beside the proposer supported the inclusion. Also, there was no "forced" archiving. The thread was archived automatically 7 September, four months after the last entry.

I am not sure why you believe that you have any special right to revert your reversions until a neutral, third person can interfiere. Please take a look at the Wikipedia policy

WP:EDITWAR

.

I suggest that you self revert, and then start a discussion in the talk page. You will never "win" through edit war. Edit war will only lead to you being blocked. --

T*U (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The debate or short-lived thread was there just months, none of the main authors or contributors to the article were aware or informed of the issue. This article is by no metric different from other country-related list articles. The main debate was in Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries and this article is highly related but the outcome is surprisingly ingored here, not just that, modified the article WITHOUT references to remove EU figures in the list and stating anti-EU arguments in the text not in line with the main debate opinions and conclusions, why? The discussion thread is restored in talk page, contributors will be informed. Edit wars come from two or more sides and not only 1 will be blocked.--Manlleus (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The month-lived debate has not a consensus too. It needs way more time and persons involved.--Manlleus (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

@

T*U (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 14:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that you reverted a rogue editor who wanted to rank-number Taiwan in the List of countries and dependencies by population because he had not obtained a consensus in the Talk page first. I found that curious, given that the State of Palestine was rank-numbered despite never achieving a consensus in the Talk page that it was a generally recognized sovereign state and should be given preferential treatment to what, for example, Kosovo and Taiwan get. I recall that the changes that Palestine was given a rank number because it was listed in ISO 3166-1, but I just visited ISO 3166-1 and found that both Taiwan and Palestine are treated in the same way: As entities that are not listed as "Independent" in ISO 3166 and that have "disputed sovereignty." If Palestine is number ranked, what NPOV reason is there for not number ranking Taiwan or Kosovo? I don't think that any of the three should be number ranked, as they are not generally recognized sovereign states, but if Palestine is to be number ranked then all similarly situated de facto sovereign states with limited, but substantial, recognition (which includes not only Palestine but also Kosovo, Taiwan and arguably SADR) should be as well. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that you undid edits meant to clarify why Luhansk and Donetsk are not listed, as per the current discussion on the talk page for List of countries and dependencies by population. Could you please explain your reasoning on the talk page? Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TU-nor! FYI, I have filed an SPI[13]. Enough is enough. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I decided to post a message here to try and figure this out. Currently the number of Russian people you say is 146.2 million but there is no way they lost that many in one year. The death rate would need to be at least 3 times higher than 162,000+ and so far these numbers look very exaggerated. I'll investigate this but just understand that Russia's population has halted decline naturally but there are death tolls there, at least not as high as people claim it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a consistent consensus on this site whether the British Isles are part of Northern Europe or Western Europe. The List of World Heritage Sites in Western Europe includes them as part of that region instead of Northern Europe despite otherwise following the United Nations definitions of the regions of Europe, but the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Northern Europe includes them in that region instead, and when I tried to add the cultures of the people of the British Isles to the Northern European cultures list, they got reverted as they are usually considered Western European instead of Northern European, but when I tried to remove the British Isles from the geography of Northern Europe and the list of countries there, it gets reverted and I get told off.Vesperius (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesperius: Yes, I am very much aware of this issue, which is a general issue common to all use of "X-ern Europe" across Wikipedia. Many editors have strong feelings about "Country A [usually their own country] is certainly [or certainly not] part of X-ern Europe". I have even seen edits like "Country B is 52% part of Y-ern Europe". The problem is that there are no universally agreed definitions of "Northern Europe", "Western Europe" etc. Various sources use various definitions for various purposes. The most sensible answer to your question about whether the British Isles are part of Northern Europe or Western Europe is "Yes!" or perhaps "It depends." Any attempt to "force" the answer one way or the other may (rightly) be opposed by counter examples. The solution may often be to avoid making an explicit categorisation. There was a discussion some years ago about whether the Balkans should be described as being in "Southeastern Europe" or in "Central and Southeastern Europe" (Slovenia being the example for Central) or in "Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe" (Moldova being the example for Eastern). The solution was to say that it is in "southeastern Europe" (lower case "s") with no links to any "X-ern Europe" article. This is undeniably correct and vague enough not to create a storm of protests.

I will suggest that you should not be too eager to put countries into boxes, but if you really feel that it is necessary to do so in a given article, try to solve it in the talk page before doing anything rash. There are a lot of feelings around... Regards! --

T*U (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. Can you please check these revisions as a neutral person? (1 2) Different users delete the neutrally sourced text repeatedly with the same comment. --Verman1 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

TU-nor: I assume they must be sockpuppets. Here are a couple of other English language sources. 1 and 2. The first source says that “This data was obtained during the study of damage inflicted to historical and cultural monuments in the occupied lands of Azerbaijan. This work was carried out within cooperation between the International Fund for Turkic Culture and Heritage, the Institute of Law and Human Rights of the ANAS and the National Commission of Azerbaijan at UNESCO,”. How this can't be neutral? Here is another source on the topic from Iran, which in general is considered not pro-Azerbaijani in the conflict. Here are more video and picture proofs on the topic 1, 2, 3 --Verman1 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

T*U (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting. Didn't know that, but I stand corrected. In my defence one of my first experiences with en:wp was the introduction of a place to german geography that never existed. Sourced and all. Happy editing, --G-41614 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK you may in fact be angry with me bringing this up again but I've been researching it's fertility rate states in 2021 but I'm not sure if this is accurate. It measures at 1.6 with it's current rate of 1.5. Is it possible the fertility rate increased, if so could it recover and see population growth again? https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SIGN

: Comments posted on user talk pages, article talk pages and other discussion pages must be properly signed.

As I have tried to explain to you, we should only use real statistical data, not more or less trustworthy predictions. My arguments regarding birth and death rates at

T*U (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason I listed those countries and excluded Spain, Portugal and Scandinavia is because those countries are what are listed as culturally Western European in the List of World Heritage Sites for Western Europe, and what is generally considered Western Europe (though sometimes the United Kingdom and Ireland are put into Northern Europe instead, like in the UN's definition). The former two are listed separately as Southern European, and Scandinavia is also separate as Northern Europe.Vesperius (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

--Nalanidil (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

https://www.romarchive.eu/en/dance/turkey-dr-adrian-marsh-collection

--Nalanidil (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

http://rombase.uni-graz.at/cgi-bin/art.cgi?src=data/ethn/groupsat/at-arlije.en.xml

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/de/vlach/collections/romani/arli-romani

https://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/whatis/language/names.shtml

--Nalanidil (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Already updated for Thailand Population according to the 2021 latest census of Thailand thai Population was around 69.9 million . Please do not revert My Edit again in the List of Countries and Dependencies , I'm only editting for number 20th to 23rd though, not Until the Whole page for today . Anyhow , I'm deeply sorry for Not Doing the right Edit when I was editting Earlier at Tanzania , South Africa and Thailand had Incomplete edits . So already Renewed it ( for Thailand til Italy Only ) Bayu Fuller (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand Til UK sorry , not Thailand til Italy . Only Renewed the Edit for number 20th until 22nd * Bayu Fuller (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Will update India's census in the " List of Asian Countries by Population " , redirected by list of Countries and dependencies by Population. How come India has only the 2011 Population census while there was already a 2015 Indian Population census being Conducted . Will Update India and Pakistan to the latest Population Census estimate . Bayu Fuller (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help with the strike through! Vizjim (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TU-nor. I saw your contributions to in the Nicos Anastasiades page and I would like you to wrote for third opinion.

Please have a look at Oz Karahan article. The articles related to Cyprus are usually become a target by Turkish and Greek nationalists. I tried to explain to the user that what is happening is not right and all information must be sourced. But user Spartacos31 is violating Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies of Wikipedia. He started a edit war just few days ago insists that the person is "Turkish" while sources do not say so. And it is clear that English is not his first language since he does not understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity. I told him to write to the "Talk" page if he finds any source for edits he propose. All sources write that person is Cypriot but users insist that "there is no Cypriot nation, a person can be Greek or Turk". He started his actions on January 30th. Here is one example of what I wrote to him while he was vandalizing the content of the article:

"This is not a place for debate if terms like Cypriot, American, Belgian or Swiss define nations or not. There is a difference between nationality and ethnicity in the English language. But in reality, the articles must be supported by sources. And the sources in this article write that the person is Cypriot. If there is a source that says that the person is "Turkish", this edit might be discussed in the "Talk" page. Until then, the article will be returned to sourced version."

Also few examples for Cypriot personalities: Nicos Anastasiades - Marios Tokas - Ploutis Servas

And of course they are identified as "Cypriot" because that is their nationality. But as I told, the Cyprus related articles in Wikipedia often become a playground for Pan-Turkist or Pan-Hellenist ideologies.

This type of arguments also have been talked in articles of the important Cypriot personalities and decided that Cypriot term is reflects the nationality of the people of Cyprus. For example you could search the "Greek" word in the History page of the Nicos Anastasiades and see that several times page got vandalized with the same arguments of the but every time fixed by the experienced Wikipedia users.[14] If you have a close look at History, you could see that the use of both Greek and Greek Cypriot terms was not allowed in the lead and infobox.

The same user does same actions in other Wikipedias as well. For example in Turkish version of this article admins stopped him. This does not makes sense because with this mentality we have to change the "nationality" section of all people who are American, Belgian, Swiss or British. Let's have a look at the few Swiss personalities: Ueli Maurer, Harald Szeemann, Freddy Buache. Even though Switzerland is ethnically divided federation (Cyprus is a unitary state) non-of the Swiss people identifies as German, Italian or French as nationality. Not even Swiss German, Swiss Italian, Swiss French. Because it is absurd and not correct.

He insist on edit warring while I invited him to Talk page if he has source or argument. User's actions are against MOS:ETHNICITY. I do not know how to handle this anymore. That is why I wanted to write to you for a third opinion. Thank you. Pasedembo (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned user Spartacos31 also just vandalised the article of Nicos Anastasiades along with Oz Karahan probably after seeing my previous message to you. Pasedembo (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasedembo: I have reverted their edits to Oz Karahan and Nicos Anastasiades and giving them some explanation and a warning on their user talk page. However, I also have some comments for you:

• The term 'vandalism' has a specific meaning in Wikipedia, see
  WP:VANDALISM
  . In this meaning of the term, neither you nor Spartacos31 are guilty of vandalism.
• Both of you are, however, guilty of edit war, see
  WP:EDITWAR
  , and could have been blocked for that several times over. I will give you a formal warning on your user talk page on this.
• You are marking many of your edits as minor. Please see
  T*U (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:EDITWAR and stopped. I will read all the policies and pages you shared with me and I will be careful. Pasedembo (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

@

T*U (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

...aaaand that's in which policy? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not adding a source but as a whole, the Pandemic phase is behind us. Despite the cases coming and going, it seems pointless to even deem it a pandemic anymore. I'll do my best to find the best source for it's enddate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SCPdude629: Please note that you must find a reliable source prior to reinserting the content that was reverted. Repeated edit attempts can result in sanctions for edit warring. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is not to do edit warring, I will try to find a better source but I need help figuring ou if something is reliable, neutral and verifiable. SCPdude629 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You removed this image of Constantine: [[15]] which says it is Constantine. I note that the image that is supposedly good old Otto is posted by the same guy!! WTF!!? I am doing some additional research on the image. I'll be back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Holy Toledo Batman! Well, if nothing else can be said, its provenance is disputed, so removing it was the right thing to do. Thank you so much for catching that! Why doesn't someone remove it for heaven's sakes! I will see if I can find a replacement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made a huge editing to the Mosquito Coast article, which you reverted without even opening a discussion, eventhough I made an explanation of why the edit was made. So here are the main points of why I made the changes: 1) the "Mosquito Coast" ended with the signing of the Treaty of Managua. 2) like all other articles relating to historical countries; there should be only one infobox to contain the general information of said historical country. That is why I removed the other infobox from the article. Whoforwho (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If the "Bold Edit" was fine, it should've not been reverted. There were no changes made to the information of the article, just the order in which the information is displayed. Whoforwho (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that there should rather be a consensus on whether the revert should be made. The change that I made to the article actually follows the general structure of other articles relating to countries and historical countries; in which there is a single general infobox for the country's information at the top/start of the article. Also, the Mosquito Coast ended with the signing of the Treaty of Managua in 1860, and was succeeded by the Mosquito Reservation. Therefore, there should be a separate article which covers that historical period of the region, with its own infobox. Rather than trying to include everything into one article. Whoforwho (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello TU-nor. I have many of these articles on my watch list so I was happy to see your name show up, since you are an experienced editor. You can provide appropriate advice, I hope, to any brand-new editors. See User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 52#Mosquito Coast Sockpuppeteer for some of the past troubles. I hope that things are headed in a good direction now. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. what about your idea about rename this articles to better name? Sillato (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To your last question: I do not think it would be a good idea to rename all these articles as you suggest, hoping that it will not be objected to. Such a large change should, in my humble opinion, always be discussed thoroughly beforehand. If you try it and someone reverts it, you will have lost time and perhaps antagonised some of the people that you would hope to get support from. The proper place to discuss such a change, would be at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), as I can see that you already have been adviced about.

As for the renaming itself, I am not so sure that I can support it (but I would promise to listen to arguments in a proper discussion). Since these are typical list articles, see

WP:SAL

, I would prefer to have the word "List" in the title. An article called "Secession in <continent>" would be expected to be more than a list article, going more in depth.

Filling the articles also with historical movements would fill them beyond any practical limits. It would also be very difficult to organize. One example: Should the "Macedonian struggle" for secession of the Macedonia region from the Ottoman Empire, leading up to the Balkan wars, be placed under Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia (which was larger than today at the time), North Macedonia (which did not exist at that time), Albania (which did not take direct part, but was created as a result of the struggle), Turkey (which also did not exist then) or Ottoman Empire (which would create a new section), or even all of these.

The frequent additions and removals in these lists are not a result of the title or of the current scope; they are a result of editors not reading or not understanding or not giving a damn about the fairly clear inclusion criteria: 1) active, 2) seeking secession etc. for a region 3) consisting of people of the area. Other editors (like me) try to clean up and remove unsourced and undue entries, like "movements" created as a joke, as a political statement or as a nostalgic dream of the old days. But it is an uphill battle. --

T*U (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked on UNESCO's site after looking at the list, and it turns out that UNESCO does include the UK in Northern Europe, contrary to the cultural definition mentioned in that page, as seen here: [16]https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2636 and [17]https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/123152. Therefore, for the sake of keeping it in line with the general UN definition of the regions of Europe used on the pages, I think that the British and Irish sites should be moved to the Northern Europe list. Said cultural definition is unsourced, anyways. Vesperius (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry. The talk page for that has long since been abandoned. I did try to bring the subject up there, but nobody ever replied, so I retracted it. Vesperius (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, I'll wait longer and see if someone does eventually respond. Vesperius (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://elstat-outsourcers.statistics.gr/Census2022_GR.pdf (page 40-44)

2A02:586:813D:2AB8:101:A61:7BFD:31BD (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of that. However, 'Athens' can be and is used for the four regional units North Athens (Βόρειος Τομέας Αθηνών), West Athens (Δυτικός Τομέας Αθηνών), Central Athens (Κεντρικός Τομέας Αθηνών) and South Athens (Νότιος Τομέας Αθηνών).

T*U (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. This area for example Markopoulo Oropou cannot be considered part of the metropolitan area of Athens. Neither WEST ATTICA nor EAST ATTICA either. 2A02:586:813D:2AB8:4DC2:C2F4:9E48:DFB2 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, many parts of West Attica and East Attica are considered part of the metropolitan area of Athens (but not of Athens Urban Area / Greater Athens). When places outside the four regional units of Athens are described as being part of the urban or metropolitan area, it should also be mentioned which reg.unit they belong to. On the other hand, removing the connection to Athens for places like Ilioupoli (which is in Central Athens reg.unit) is plain disruptive. --

T*U (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am sending you the regulation plan of Attica. You have made a great effort, but he who tries to make all of Attica a part of Athens has deceived you.

Urban Planning Centers https://www.tovima.gr/2009/04/18/society/ti-allazei-me-to-rythmistiko-stin-attiki/

In order to support the multi-centered structure of the Attica Region, the organization of central functions is promoted in a hierarchical network of urban planning centers which are enriched by the location of functions, public or private initiative. The example of the development of the urban center of Athens is typical.

The centers are categorized as follows:

Metropolitan Centers:

The central area of Athens and the central area of Piraeus.

Broad Radiation Centers:

Kifissia- Marousi- Chalandri, PeristeriAigaleo and Kallithea- Glyfada- Elliniko. They are the secondary centers of the Basin. 2A02:586:813D:2AB8:9542:BE40:33EE:158D (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, beside that the link you have given is from 2009, before the Kallikratis reform and therefore obsolate, it also does not say anything about urban areas or metropolitan areas.

Apart from that, I have never claimed that all of Attica is part of Athens. --

T*U (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I just wanted to directly respond to a good-faith edit by yourself on the Balkans article. Defining the Balkans can be a controversial topic, and there are a number of historical and geographical factors to consider. However, Hungary is not considered part of the Balkans, despite large parts of Hungary being a part of the Ottoman Empire for 150 years.

You mentioned the following:

“Also, since Hungary is not mentioned in the description of what is or can be included, it is unnecessary to specify that it is *not* included.”

It is now not mentioned in the description of what is or can be included, but in the version prior to my edits, the the region of Ottoman Hungary could have been considered a part of the Balkans according to the description.

This is because the following statement existed in the article:

“The term Balkan Peninsula was a synonym for Rumelia in the 19th century, the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire”.

According to this statement, the area of the province of Ottoman Hungary, which makes up a large portion of modern-day Hungary, would have been considered part of Rumelia and the Balkan Peninsula.

Wczeran (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear User, please see |Accompany flags with country names section. Using {{flag|Country}} template is the true way described here. Almost every city infobox has {{flag|Country}} template. For example see: Yerevan ,Kapan , etc..Yakamoz51 (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I was wondering if i could revert you latest revision on the list of swedish war page. Your reasoning for the removal of Capture of Manuel Briones was that it does not count as a war. But i think that the article has evolved passed that, the Invasion of Åland, First Schleswig War, Swedish volunteers in Persia and all of the UN-peacekeeping missions were not Swedish wars either. Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

T*U (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, i saw that you doubted swedens participation in the Battle of the Atlantic. This is not to start conflict or anything, but i would like to share some engadgements were swedish ships participated, just to show you some examples!

• Convoy ON 122
• Operation Rheinübung
• Convoy OB 318
• Convoy SL 125

So please do not take out sweden from the article Battle of the Atlantic.

Best regards! Dencoolast33 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I recently saw your reversion of my edit. You are right, my edit would have produced inconsistency against the source of other figures, which is UNWTO. I checked out their website and saw updated 2023 figures for France and the UK, which has the same figures with my citations. I will revert the edit, delete the article citations, and add the UNWTO source URL as the primary citation. Thank you.

Source: Global and regional tourism performance (unwto.org)

Inbound Tourism > Ranking > 2022

Yohan1994 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as one of the few voices of sanity on Balkan articles, I would be interested in your take on this discussion [18].