User talk:Heracletus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Heracletus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian language

I didn't mean to include the UN in the list, I was using another language's infobox as a base and I didn't notice that. I know that Macedonian is an official minority language in Liqenas (and possibly elsewhere), though I don't know of any English language sources. <sarcasm>Don't worry, I'm not the flaming type like most of those evil history-stealing Skopjians</sarcasm>. --AimLook (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regulation

That's a tricky one. They publish the official grammars and dictionaries which in itself is a form of regulation (prescriptivism). It's your call. If you disagree with it being in the article, I won't object if you remove it. --AimLook (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no problem with that. I still think that Albania should have , cause the article given as source is like flame... User_talk:Francis_Tyers#Macedonian_Language...

Read it here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Macedonians+in+Greece+and+Albania:+A+comparative+study+of+recent+developments&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

first link...

I think i'm like a trouble for people editing this article... :P But, everyone should do the same for Greek ones, too... Heracletus (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful and considered reply. I have found a source that states that it does have a form of official recognition in Albania, now if you can find a source that refutes this source then by all means present it. I'm not particularly interested in what the source says about Greece as there are many better articles on the subject. I can give you a short bibliography if you so desire. Best regards, - Francis Tyers · 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Tyers, as to whether the parts you trimmed where relevant or not: I could make a .tk site called greeksuperiority.tk and state some bad things or stuff that is not real about "Macedonia", then add some trimmed quotes saying that "Macedonia" never existed and then have some friends from the local university add their names. That is to say, that sources are to be judged as a whole. A source that flames about Greece, and uses "Macedonija" as one of its own sources is not a very good one to use. So, please either change the infobox or the source. Or, let me do it, and tell me if you agree with the way i'll do it.

You would then be welcome to attempt to get this published in a third-party peer-reviewed academic journal where-upon it would qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Francis Tyers · 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, ok... :D There have been publications by what one would consider the Greek hard-liners in "third-party peer-reviewed academic journals"... :D Heracletus (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On the status of the Macedonian language in Albania? Fantastic, I'd be keen to see them. - Francis Tyers · 11:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, on the status of "Macedonia", in general. You know if scientists argue about you not existing, it's rather pointless for them to argue about your language... :D However, those are not my ideas, so don't bug me for sources... :D Heracletus (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish War

In response to your message about this edit[1] to the article Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), I noticed that the reference wasn't mentioned anywhere else on the article. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to find it in the revision history, but to no avail. Placing the {{cn}} tag is what we do on Wikipedia in such cases. In this example, it has resulted in someone providing the correct reference. I'm just really surprised that this faulty link remained on such the article for so long.

The tone of your message was quite rude; I suggest that, in future, before assuming that a long-standing and experienced editor has not done something, you assume good faith that he has done his best in making a particular edit, which was the case here.--Damac (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Dardani, entered by Heracletus (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we're going to have to fix that article too. There is enough proof to show that the Dardani were Illyrian. --Getoar (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IF YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THEN HAVE FUN WITH IT. YOU PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT I KNOW. IGNORANT!--Getoar (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

The problem is that you were removing sourced information. If you think it's wrong and should be removed, you need to explain why on talk. No problem with doing it, as long as it's explained. Black Kite 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I know that's a problem, but even a quick note on talk to say "I am doing this - this is my reason" would be enough. Black Kite 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for using the talk. The quickest way to re-insert information is to copy and paste from the previous diff [2], checking that you don't overwrite anything else (the lead paragraph doesn't need changing anyway). Black Kite 02:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[3] made on February 19 2008 to Kosovo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kurykh 06:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the Kosovo article is under article probation and revert warring is particularly harmful at this time, I've blocked you anyway. You can be unblocked if you promise to keep away from the controversy for a while. I'll also point you to WP:ARBMAC, please bear in mind that longer revert limitations are handed out for revert-warring over Balkan-related topics pretty quickly these days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Slavic names of Greek cities

Remove them if you like, I don't mind. PMK's been promoting the view that they're actually ethnic Maks and so on and had to justify it in some way. The population of most of them consisted of Bulgarians that were exchanged for Greeks on a couple of times, following agreements by the two countries. Consequently, the places were renamed as were some in Bulgaria. We have the Greek names of towns and villages which had a Greek name, you can check it if you like or add them if you see fit. You'd be basing your edits on history (see Plovdiv) as me and Todor Bozhinov are doing. As for the other view: we all know about United Macedonia. Cheers. --Laveol ^T 12:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

The dialects found in Greece are an integral part of the Macedonian lanugage

In response to your question, the local Macedonian name was added to article where the Macedonian language speakers constitute a large minority or, in many cases, a majority of the population. This population although speaks so-called "roofless" Slavic dialects, which are considered to be Dialects of the Macedonian language. The name "Macedonian Slavic" was chosen to act as a compromise per se, because it not only combined linguistic facts but also the geo-political situation present. The term "Macedonian Slavic" was chosen becuase it was deemed neutral and did not claim that the local inhabitants were either "Aegean Macedonians" or "Slavophone Greeks". In this way the actual linguistic situation was to be reflected as per WP:NPOV. The addition of the "Bulgarian" name (often the excact same name in the Bulgarian Script) was deemed a WP:FRINGVEIW, seeing as Bulgarian dialects are not spoken in Greek Macedonia. This is a serious POV push on behalf of Laveol and TodorBozhinov. "Macedonian Slavic" is the appropriate name to be attached to places in West and Central Macedonia. For the rest see here. PMK1 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have clearly shown that you are not able to understand the point. Macedonian Slavic, was chosen because it was not claiming that the speakers had either a Macedonian or Greek ethnic conscienceness. The Slavic dialects of Greece, are in fact apart of the Macedonian and Bulgarian language. Even the lead states, "The Slavic dialects of Greece are the dialects of Macedonian and Bulgarian". The Greek name is mentioned at Bitola, I cannot see what you are whingeing about. Unless you have anything relevant to say, I would advise to read more about the linguistic situation of the Macedonian language on the Balkan peninsula. PMK1 (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And you have failed to see that Macedonian Slavic leads you to the article Macedonian language. And since Slavic dialects of Greece is so neutral why do you object using this term? --Laveol ^T 09:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, User:Laveol, that's not right. It's two to one, and he did link it in his first comment. Let's all just calm down... :D

Again, responding. You complain that the Greek name does not feature on any villages located in the Republic of Macedonia. Which villages in the Republic of Macedonia had a Greek speaking majority/minority populations? I know of a few Grecoman Vlach villages, who since 1913 have lost any such pro-Greek feelings. Where are these Greek speaking villages? If you find any Greek speaking villages/places in the Republic of Macedonia, feel free to add the Greek name as a minority language name. In the same way which I have done.

If you believe that the articles do not meet WP:NOTABILITY or any other reason why they should be deleted, nominate them for deletion. It is a common wikipedia practise, I have no objections if that will benefit the project.

My final comment was in regards to your apparent lack of knowledge of either Macedonian, Bulgarian and the various Macedonian Slavic dialects in Greece. Had you had some linguistic knowledge you would not be seriously questioning the linguistic link between the Macedonian spoken in ROM and the Macedonian Slavic spoken in Greek Macedonia.

I am still being friendly also. :) PMK1 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:PMK1. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arisfc.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arisfc.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

September 2010

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Raúl Bobadilla

"Expected to sign" is not the same as "has signed". A lot of editors fail to understand this. When there is a reliable source for his transfer to Aris Thessaloniki F.C. I will add him to the Aris squad. --Jaellee (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Aris F.C. (Thessaloniki), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lotto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. When you recently edited Iraklis Thessaloniki F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pieria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Iraklis 1908 F.C. logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Iraklis 1908 F.C. logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

EPLA and UPC

Thanks for your kind message on my talk page. I agree that the EPLA article needs to be improved. And I would also say that the UPC article needs to be improved as well... None of them are featured articles, obviously. In my opinion, the UPC article would benefit from relying more on secondary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). I will try to add some secondary sources. I personally prefer scholarly articles over press releases, whether these press releases originate from the EU Commission, the EPO or any other organization.

Naturally, I don't own the EPLA article, so please feel free to add further secondary sources to the EPLA article, to improve it. One could indeed explain the extent to which the UPC was inspired by the EPLA, if some secondary sources provide such an analysis.

As to the merge proposal, although I oppose the merge per these reasons, naturally I have no objection to requesting a third opinion (WP:THIRD). Feel free to do so. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here, my apologies for having taken this long (two weeks) to comment, indeed... I must have been too lazy or too busy (or both!) Anyway, thanks for dropping the merge proposal. IMHO, this is the good decision. --Edcolins (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There is another point I would like to mention: it would help if you could write more concisely. But please don't take it as a criticism, just as an observation: it is time-consuming for others to get involved in the debate then. --Edcolins (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrestrial Trunked Radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Treaties of the European Union may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Response re Danish Expert

I've left a response to your comment at User_talk:Danish_Expert#More_plagiarism. TDL (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:ANI about this. You can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violations_by_User:Danish_Expert. TDL (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Heracletus, this note is just briefly to inform you, that I have now posted an answer to your question launched at my user talkpage one week ago. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Danish Expert. I read your reply and for my part, it was addressing what I asked you. I wasn't aware of that euro convergence template and the work of you and TDL on it. I do like the information you add on wikipedia, although I do still believe you overdo it with footnotes and relevant details.

Generally, I'm sorry that issues have kept arising with your work. I would suggest you ask L.tak or someone for an impartial opinion if an issue arises again. Heracletus (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thumbs up. I just want to let you know, that your personal opinion about specific issues, is along the way, also something that continue always to be greeted welcome by me, on an equal level with the opinion expressed by L.tak and all other editors. I want to thank you for all your inputs. As you already have experienced, my work here at Wikipedia often involves a broad research into the content, and in a few situations I just had to leave things uploaded at an intermediate state as part of that process to move it along (because it had reached a state of being "correct", and then later could be perfected by "cooking it down" or adding additional sources or reformulations whenever appropriate). In such situations, I of course accept later alterations imposed on my material. I always consider my work to be part of a process where we continuously jointly work to improve the article/content. In the future, I will indeed consider more frequently to invite L.tak + you + others to post your impartial third person opinions, if things get too heated between me and TDL. What happened lately for me in a couple of disputes with TDL, is that he seems to magnify some found issues (turning a small wind into a storm) or twist the debates into an angle which will make him look like the final "debate winning guy", instead of: Focusing merely to present/debate and solve the issue from a neutral point of view (without escalating things out of proportion) - while ensuring that we based on exchanged case specific arguments succeed to find and implement a solution in the most time efficient way. When administrators/you read such lengthy twisted internal "TDL vs. DE debates" from the outside, it is almost impossible to figure out what is upside down (and this is certainly not your fault, but something I blame TDL for). By the end, though, we always manage to find a good solution for the issues he confronted me with, after having walked through a very time consuming debate. Keep up all your good work, Heracletus, and have a nice weekend. :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Have a nice weekend, too, Danish Expert. And, please stop talking about TDL (at least in public), because my intention was not to re-start any arguments and he will eventually see this and may take it as a personal attack behind his back or something. Heracletus (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Greek help needed

Hello Heracletus, I'm contacting you because we need some Greek translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on el.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Greek Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aris B.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Tosh Angelos

Heracletus, I understand that you're a Greek-language expert, but we need to keep the spelling to follow the sources. In regards to Maya Angelou, Gillespie (p. 29) spells Angelos' name "Enistasious", and that's what needs to remain, regardless of how inaccurate it may be. Until we can find a more reliable source that has what you state is the correct spelling, and it's connected with the man who married Angelou, it needs to remain. I regret to tell you that I will continue to revert you if you continue to change it. Thanks for your interest in accuracy and for your advocacy of Greek here in this project. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be disrespectful and insulting. I've been polite and have stated my position clearly; please extend me the same courtesy. You can bring it to a third party all you want, but what sways me are reasoned arguments. If you can cite both WP policy and sources that support your position, I'll take it into consideration. According to WP policy, you discuss any change to an article on the talk page first; again, a courtesy I extended to you and something I expect from others. The references were placed using VisualEditor and templates. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Liechtenstein Free Movement of Labour

Liechtenstein does not apply freedom of movement like the other EEA countries. Given it's special status it is allowed to impose quotas and require permits from all EEA citizens as permitted by the Anex VIII of the EEA treaty "http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Annexes%20to%20the%20Agreement/annex8.pdf" It is easier for EEA citizens to get a work permit than non-EEA citizens, however they are still required to obtain it and are subject to a quota so there isn't a true freedom of movement as is in the rest of the EEA. It does apply transitional provisions as well and (at least until 2012) treated Bulgarians and Romanians as 3rd country nationals. I am not sure if that has now changed, I can not find any sources on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC3A:1610:C18C:152F:CC4C:92D2 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

linkrot

He Heracletus, would it be possible for you to use the cite-template when adding references? Barelinks are susceptible to linkrot and are not looking very well in the refist. If you need any help filling them out, I'd be happy to advice.... I will work on the exisiting linkrot issues at Unified Patent Court, but I think for the future it is easier that anyone who adds the ref does it immediately... L.tak (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at my talk page. I'd much appreciate if you could make an exception for the Unified Patent Court and the European Fiscal Compact, especially if you add multiple refs regarding a single fact that needs referencing. I have placed a template on both pages, so also others are aware of the work to be done and the associated problems…. L.tak (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody pays me either, but it is not uncommon to have style and content discussions between unpaid editors ;-), and as you went in both situations against established editing practice there, I though it would be good to remind you... L.tak (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing the template at both pages; I am sure it helps for the stability of the ref-system as a whole, and it looks a lot better! L.tak (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jindalee Operational Radar Network, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TDL (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MIFARE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NFC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The new Kosovo Serb assembly

The old one established in 2008 is illegal now because it wasn't established legitimately. There may be a new assembly but its not that assembly started in 2008. That is an illegal parallel institution that was abolished in the brussels agreement. The article says the assembly is about resisting pristina rule and all that stuff has been abolished by the Brussels agreement. There may be a new Assembly but its not that one established in 2008. I would think it would be best if you reverted your reversion a because the 2008 assembly was indeed abolished because its anti Brussels and anti pristina and not involved with pristina law and rather Serbian law. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

you obviously know the Brussels agreement was about abolishing all Serbian government supported institutions in Kosovo. The assembly was one of those parallel institutions like the courts and police forces that were abolished but the people in those now abolished parallel institutions could join the equivalent institutions of Unmik Kosovo. Serbia no longer recognizes province of Kosovo institutions as they were considered parallel and all abolished by the Brussels agreement. I supported creating a new article on the new assembly when it came into being. You are saying this old parallel assembly is being reorganized and rebranded but that is not true. It was totally abolished by Serbia and that's all in the Brussels agreement which has abolished all Serbian supported institutions and makes Serb join what they see as unmik kosovo but which Albanians call republic of Kosovo. There is no more province of Kosovo and met to Serbia. Qwerty786 (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

you fundamentally misunderstand what is going on in the Brussels agreement. So because you are going to engage in reverting and re editing and sticking to your view that the Brussels agreement is not about abolishing all Serbian parallel structures which is explicit in the Brussels agreement then there's nothing i can do but urge you to look again at the Brussels agreement and what is going on currently. The things you quote explicitly say a new assembly will be formed based on the condition of neutrality so no assembly can be called "assembly serbian municilanties of province of kos met. I am not engaging in an edit war you just need to reread eveything and you will see what is really going on.

You talk about assemblies according to the Kosovo law on municipalities associations and the old one was not that. You just don't see that the old assembly was a parallel institution. Not in line with Kosovo law and was abolished by Serbia because it was serbias pre Brussels parallel institution Qwerty786 (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are just completeley wrong and so committed to being wrong you are now using the classic and desperate insult of implying I'm writing in a language that is not my native one. You have indicated you realize that you were mistaken in believing the old assembly acknowledged by serbia to be an illegal parallel instituiton was Not the new proposed one that will be formed in accordsnce wih Kosovo law. You dont understand that Serbia acknowledged that like its police and court system the assembly was a parellel institution and agreed it would be abolished and replaced. This is not biased or skewed info. Like the Serbian police and court system the old assembly will be abolished. That's what the Brussels deal is about - abolishing all Serbian government Instituions in Kosovo. That's not bias- that's factual and the only way Serbia can get in the eu. Qwerty786 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Its a specific part of the Brussels agreement that Serbia can't block Kosovo from eu memebership! The links to the Brussels agreement are all over the place on Wikipedia! It's also a fact that all Serbian parallel structures are being abolished. It has nothing to with neutrality. It's a fact. Serbia agreed to it.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbian-parallel-police-removed-kosovo-s-thaci-says

http://mobile.euobserver.com/foreign/122677

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE93I0IB20130419?irpc=932 Qwerty786 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not biased. All the sources say Serbia can't block Kosovo from being in the EU. That all parallel institutions based on Serbian law have been completely abolished. The things abolished include Serb police, courts, and assembly based on 2008 elections in Kosovo which were organized by Serbia. So the main fact of this is that the Assembly based on the 2008 elections has been completely abolished. Based on the results of the 2013 elections the serbs who won powers in the municipalities will create an organization of serb municipalities that can create an assembly. The two assemblies are not the same and one will not evolve from the other. The old assembly article which was based on the 2008 elections doesn't exist anymore. It's not even mentioned in any articles anymore because it was abolished. I have looked for sources recently that have mentioned the assembly and anyone in the assembly and they just don't exist because it was a Serbia based parallel institution that doesn't exist anymore because it was abolished like the serb police and court systems. I have looked and because of the Brussels deal wipes out abolishes all Serbia based and organized parallel institutions because that is what Serbia agreed to be in the EU they just aren't mentioned anymore. It is from a bias to say Serbia can't block Kosovo from being in the EU - it is a fact. That you wrote Serbia can block Kosovo from being in the EU is false. If and when it becomes a member of the EU and does so before Kosovo Serbia does so with the provision that it can't block Kosovo from being a member. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The two assemblies had nothing whatsoever to do with each other. One was from elections organized by Belgrade in 2008 and which has been defunct for years and one to be created as part of elections for a Serbian municipalities association given the ok by pristina. One assembly had absolutely nothing to do with the other! The Brussels deal formally abolished all Serbian government institutions and powers in Kosovo which the former assembly was a part of and therefore completely abolished by the Brussels deal like like Serbian police and court systems. Qwerty786 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The only source that matters is the Brussels agreement. In one example it makes it clear that that all the Republic of Serbia legal structures will be completely abolished as there is only a Kosovo legal framerwork. "10. The judicial authorities will be integrated and operate within the Kosovo legal framework. The Appellate Court in Pristina will establish a panel composed of a majority of K/S judges to deal with all Kosovo Serb majority municipalities" The same thing goes for the police and all elected bodies which are only organized under Kosovo law and anything established under Republic of Serbia law is completely abolished and replaced with organizations that come from Kosovo legal framework. The Kosovo legal framework is the Republic of Kosovo framework. This is why Rakic but not Pantic could become mayor of north mitrovica only when he swore an oath to the republic of Kosovo. Throughout this whole thing I have only ever referred to Brussels agreement and what Serbia has done. Qwerty786 (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are not 26 Serb municipalities in Kosovo. The assembly of the community of Serbian municipalities could never number 26 Qwerty786 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement Notice

Enforcement of an Arbitration remedy has been requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Heracletus. Per your rights, you may make a statement. Hasteur (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your comments re: RFM

Your response on the mediation talk page struck me as factual (i.e., based on observations and evidence) until the last line. WP:DENY is an essay (not policy) and the way you have used it may be seen as a personal attack. Would you be willing to strike the reference to WP:DENY? Sunray (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did do so. However, Hasteur is still commenting on conduct... Also, there is no consensus on the articles in question... I have no idea why Hasteur writes "Please observe the persistent pattern of re-litigating the same points over and over again that already came to a definite consensus multiple times previously...". Heracletus (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is important, in a mediation, that if another user does something, it does not justify a counter reaction. In order for a mediation to be successful, participants need to follow WP policies and guidelines, including those related to behavior. I appreciate that you have struck the explicit reference to WP:DENY. I note that you left the rest of the phrase "but refuse to acknowledge User:Hasteur,". I assume you mean certain actions taken by Hasteur. If those actions are related to content, that could be the subject of mediation. If they are related to behavior, they would be better dealt with in another forum (such as an Administrator's noticeboard or Arbitration). In considering this, you may wish to strike the phrase as well. Sunray (talk).

You forgot to sign your comment, Sunray. And, although I do believe that Hasteur did not follow all WP policies and guidelines, including those related to behaviour, he/she was the one who reported me to ArbCom's enforcement, rather than me reporting him anywhere. Heracletus (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was adding to that paragraph and we had an edit conflict. You may want to bear in mind that any conduct violation is not the subject of mediation. So on the mediation page, just refer to content. How another user behaves should not be your concern. Sunray (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, what I mean is that I do not acknowledge Hasteur as part of the content dispute, he/she is only there to cause trouble against me, he/she has written so himself/herself. Secondly, since he/she clearly tries to disrupt the process, it's my problem, too, as I am part of this process and want to see it through. However, my intentions concern the content. For the conduct, I am well aware that there administrators in the mediation committee and in the ArbCom's enforcement page, where he dragged this whole thing. They could take a look at the page's history and see who did what. I wrote what you call a factual account and that's it. I now want to focus on my content dispute with Qwerty786. Actually, I am even bored of making the same statements for the content even, as they have been made in our talk pages, mine and Qwerty786's, and in DRN. But, I am in the mediation process for that.

On the other hand, when someone opens a mediation request as an uninvolved volunteer of DRN and then mentions conduct issues in it and that he/she is not at all involved and strikes his/her username off and mentions the ArbCom in the request's issues, I am rather suspect of his/her intentions, which could potentially lead into sanctions against the involved people, including me in this case. Especially when that person then has an edit war insisting on conduct issues being included while his/her username is not, and when this fails and he/she has to include his/her username, he/she drags me to ArbCom enforcement. I think this is all a factual account, including my suspicion, which could, of course, be totally unfounded.

However, I want the conduct thing to stop, otherwise, indeed I could have dragged him/her to ANI or beyond. I want to resolve the dispute with Qwerty786. If Hasteur wants to claim he/she is involved, he/she will have to leave conduct out of the mediation request and also prove he has disputed the content involved. Otherwise, I cannot recognise him/her as a part in this dispute and, in any case, when he/she has written, "Since Heracletus is either incompentent and can't understand the rules of the road or is willfully trying to yank me in to this case by making it a conduct issue with me as well, I'll add myself to this case and come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants...", I cannot believe that he/she will act differently than he/she claims. He/She added himself/herself to this only to keep the conduct issues in and disrupt this process. I mean, he/she makes the claim on his/her own. Heracletus (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The sole purpose of my comment was to point out the differences between a conduct dispute (or a conduct-related comment), which may be dealt with either via an Administrators' noticeboard or AfbCom, and a mediation, which deals with content issues. The Mediation Committee is only concerned with the latter. Sunray (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to find your action on Hasteur's mediation request issues being over conduct, and not over only the content, but find nothing. Shouldn't you first do something about this and then just tell me about what the mediation committee deals with? I mean, my request was about content only, but the mediation committee rejected it over being on the same scope as Hasteur's request to mediate on conduct. So, please, fix first this, and then tell me more. Heracletus (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't explained this well. The Mediation Committee does not deal with conduct issues other than to comment, when necessary, to permit a mediation to go forward. This I have done. The Mediation Committee rejected the second mediation request on procedural grounds: Simply put, we cannot have two mediation requests on the same theme at the same time. We deal with the first one. If it cannot be straightened up, it will be rejected. End of story. I hope that this is clear. Sunray (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you have completely missed my point. You already have my position that I want you to only consider the content issues and not the conduct issues (as a mediator) in writing, and yet, you keep pestering me by repeating that the mediation committee does not deal with conduct issues. I never requested you to deal with conduct issues. It is Hasteur that has filed a request which contains conduct issues and who keeps referring to them. However, you have not opened a thread in Hasteur's talk page. You have only opened one in mine. This is not a competition on how many talk page threads you will open and where, of course, but does it not make sense that you talk with him/her about his inclusion of conduct issues? Having read your reply to him/her again in the mediation request, even though he/she again referred to conduct, you did not mention to him/her this: "The Mediation Committee does not deal with conduct issues other than to comment, when necessary, to permit a mediation to go forward." or anything similar. Instead, you bought on his consensus point, while you could visit any of the articles under dispute yourself and see if there ever was a consensus (and there never was). Please, instead of replying to me here again, just go this editor's talk page and ask for his/her input on removing the conduct issues off the request and on whether he/she is a participant in this content dispute and so on. That would be productive, because those are the points that I made regarding my acceptance of the mediation process or not, and they have not been properly addressed. If you repeat a rephrased "We only consider content and not conduct" again and again here, until the mediation request fails, no purpose will be served: I already know this thing and it is one of my two points on disagreeing with Hasteur's mediation request: He/She included conduct issues in it. Heracletus (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

DPR map

Can I understand where did you source the map? I found elsewhere different information and where is it told the entiry oblast is somehow supporting the rebels? --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I used the term "oblast", but what I meant was raion. So, the map shows which raions have parts of them under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic (light maroon), or are completely occupied by it (dark maroon). In this sense, it is equivalent to the other maps you have seen online. If you want to make a more detailed map, showing the situation on the actual territory, instead by raion, you can do so, and then replace this map with the one you made. Heracletus (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

New design-update proposed for the euro convergence criteria table

Hi Heracletus. Recently I proposed a new design update for our euro convergence criteria table. The basic idea behind the proposal, is that the table should closely and accurately mimic the European Commission's assessment of each singular deciding criteria and subcriteria - where a singular non-compliance always will lead to convergence disapproval for euro adoption. In total we have 8 such singular deciding criteria. My proposal and a summary of the arguments behind it, can be found at our debate on Template talk:Euro convergence criteria#New columns. TDL has asked for other editors to post how they feel about the new proposal. I hope you have time to join our ongoing debate, and can endorse my proposal (based on my listed quiet reasonable arguments). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

IP block exemption

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting an IP address block exemption, because this is the IP I am getting when I am home. I recently moved to a new apartment block in Germany, and as part of the rent I am also getting internet. I want to be able to edit wikipedia again from home, so I would like to be exempted from this IP block as I am a perfectly legitimate user. So, I was a bit surprised when I got this message: "Editing from 80.237.128.0/17 has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad for the following reason(s): ... ", as I am not even able to find the block on the IP block list or my personal block list. Heracletus (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I now found the block entry and it is the following: 18:47, 19 January 2013 80.237.128.0/17 18:47, 19 January 2015 DeltaQuad account creation disabled {{webhostblock}} Could someone also verify whether this ip is indeed a hosting service or just something went wrong? And, in either case, could I please be somehow unblocked? Heracletus (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

       I also could not edit WP:SPI#Quick_CheckUser_requests to ask a CheckUser to look into it before applying for this unblock. In either case this IP block seems quite old and rather dubious, as it's about possible tor hosting more than a year ago. Couldn't it just be lifted altogether? Heracletus (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

IP Block exemption granted by DeltaQuad. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad:- in your opinion is the range block still needed? PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Yes, the host belongs to Host Europe (Deutschland), and the only service they provide is webhosting and domain type services. Though I would like to confer with you privately on this matter before proceeding.

@Heracletus: I see you have been able to edit since the issue with your home IP. Is that a permanent solution or temporary? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I just edited here from work, so it's not a permanent solution. Heracletus (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now that I got home again, I got this message when going on an edit page: "Editing from 217.79.176.0/20 has been blocked (disabled) by Materialscientist for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." Heracletus (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, some pages give me my IP as 217.79.191.29, while others as 80.237.216.38. I got my host name as vpn21.hotsplots.net, and hotsplots is indeed the ISP, but I have no idea why they use a VPN. Furthermore, another page gave me Host Europe GmbH as the ISP. Additionally, other IP pages gave me my IP as 62.75.239.21. Well, at least most sites agree on vpn21.hotsplots.net and one of the two first IPs... Heracletus (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And, well, I see my IP and the gateway as 192.168.x.x, so it indeed is a VPN... And by now using another VPN on top of that, I seem to be able to edit... :S Heracletus (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So i've added IPBE to your account because it seems quite legitimate to me that your on a ISP with a rotating VPN, and you have an established 2k edit count here. I looked up the particular service that is being used, and I can see why they may implement it as such. So you have IPBE for now to get by the craziness your ISP seems to be putting out. Happy editing! -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you, then. Heracletus (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bundesrat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ἡ Βικιπαιδεία ἑλληνιστί

Hi there, I am contacting you here as this seems to be the wiki you are most active in. There is currently an ongoing proposal with regards to having an ancient Greek Wikipedia, accompanied by an active incubator wiki that has plenty of articles already. I thought I would let you know as you have a strong knowledge of ancient Greek, so you're more than welcome to participate if you find it worthwhile. Gts-tg (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Vanjagenije (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating multiple accounts in order to "play games for fun" is WP:ILLEGIT. You are blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it seams that someone was pretending to be you, after all. I unblocked you. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Heracletus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Heracletus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jonathunder (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 Greek legislative election

After turning this page into a DAB page, could you please fix all the incoming links, which you can see here. Cheers, Number 57 07:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)