Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I was about to argue that these were more than "tangentially related" and that's why I reverted. Then I realized that in fact you were deleting because they were already linked elsewhere. I'm so sorry. Reverting my own edit so as not to start an edit war! Psychopomplemousse (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed you've issued a number of warnings at User talk:Himariot234 over a period of multiple months. As arbitrary user talk pages aren't typically monitored by administrators, please remember to eventually use WP:ANI to report any such cases in the future. Thanks! --Joy (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joy: Thanks for letting me know. I was eventually planning to report the user in WP:ANI, as is indicated in my last warning on 24 November 2024 (diff), where I stated that they "will eventually get reported if this continues." Having checked their last edits (I do keep tabs on them since the aforementioned warning), I might have gone through with it today (I am not active on a daily basis) if you hadn't issued a block already. In case the user persists with the same disruptive behavior after the expiration of their block, I will notify you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi I see you recently edited the anti Greek Sentiment page. I added to it, information about Pagan anti Greek sentiment via appropriation of Hellenism into a religion. Some reversed it, they are harassing me trying to keep the information sources off wikipedia. Can you help? PixelPenguin23 (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi - Skyrise has changed the reference to Gurdjieff being a Greek -Armenian philopher to a Russian philosopher.

He bases hs argument on the suggestion that Wiki policy on biographies stipulates that citienship should be referred to in the opening sentences but not ethnicity. So I posted a link to Gurdjieffs Armenian passport at https://www.gurdjieff.am/library/passport/

What is your view? Please see my talk page where Skyerise has expressd his view Londonlinks (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I have noticed that you've reverted my changes in the article about Ancient Macedonias. In particular https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonians&diff=1288743460&oldid=1288741230 you've changed "and Jonathan Hall note that Arrian (Anabasis 2.10.7) refers to Greeks and Macedonians as belonging to different races a term that explicitly articulates notions of descent.^[1]" which is supported by the sources provided. This is what the sources say. You've then written that "notes that nearly all surviving references to antagonisms and differences between Greeks and Macedonians, such as belonging to different génē,^[1] exist in the written speeches of Arrian, who..." which is not supported by sources provided and doesn't make any sense. Can you justify your reasoning behind this change? Why have you changed something that is supported by the references and makes grammatically a sense to something that doesn't make any sense and is not supported by the sources? SolderUnion (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of User:HelenHIL. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

All I did was to revert an unexplained removal of content, and attempt to integrate Malkin's (2001, p. 161) information accurately, in the same sentence (diff); génē, not races, is indeed "a term that explicitly articulates notions of descent". As for Badian (1982, n. 72 on p. 51), I didn't really have time to check the reference, and you didn't provide any reasoning when you removed the text (diff); now that I checked, I will rephrase it according to the source (your phrasing is problematic). – Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ancient Macedonians § Correcting Nature of sources section 176. SolderUnion (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of User:HelenHIL. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the message.

My source is Helen Kinvig who holds a Phd in Volcanology from Bristol University, UK, and she wrote her thesis on the caldera of Nisyros. She is a friend of mine. You can contact here on Facebook here https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=3624707

I am currently writing a small guide to Nisyros to include the crater of course. Here is a conversation Helen and I had recently:

(Helen) '...Whereas the craters.... These are the result of phreatic eruptions. There was no magma or lava. These were formed by steam explosions beneath the ground essentially. And that made everything above blast away.

Craters can also form from eruptions.... as lava or ash etc. But in those cases, the crater is again the "void" left by blasting away the rocks that were there before.

So that's how Calderas are different - as they are from ground collapse subsidence, rather than the removal of that top material'.

I am waiting for Helen to send me the title of her Peer-reviewed thesis and when I have it I will send that to you as the direct source.

Lots of people make this mistake - calling the crater a caldera but I wanted to get it right. Even on some of the translated material available at the cafe there are errors in the translations. and a lot of the escorts also get it wrong, sadly. I was also an escort on Nisyros.

I hope this helps and you can now correct this Wikipedia entry.

Regards

Nat.x 94.65.193.0 (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Nat.x, and thanks for your message. Helen's thesis, once accessible, can be used to support content in the article. However, she has already published peer-reviewed work which contradicts what you tried to add to the page. Specifically, in Analysis of volcanic threat from Nisyros Island, Greece, with implications for aviation and population exposure (2010), which is a peer-reviewed article co-authored by Helen herself, we read (emphasis in italics is mine):

• p. 1101: The most conspicuous geologic feature of Nisyros is its 3.8 km wide caldera, which is thought to have formed during a large explosive rhyolitic eruption ∼45 ka before present (...), and has since been partially refilled by dacitic domes (...). Historically, there have been 13 phreatic eruptions in the caldera, most recently during 1871–1873 and in 1888 (...).

Compare the above to your unsourced addition (diff):

• It has a 3–4-kilometre-wide (1.9–2.5 mi) crater (which is caused by eruption) and at the centre is a caldera (caused by a collapse of the hardered floor). The caldera is believed to be around 4,000 years old.

The 3.8 km wide caldera, formed during a large explosive rhyolitic eruption approximately 45,000 years ago, is what has the craters caused by subsequent phreatic eruptions; not the other way around. Besides the aforementioned craters, there are also (rhyo)dacitic domes (or, lava domes) caused by post–caldera volcanism. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Perfect Demetrios, I see that you rephrased it in the corrected manner as Wikipedia wanted. Cheers, feel if you need any help on any matter considering the latter area. Aetolia (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for referring directly to the film. Your link is more accurate. Londonlinks (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nikephoros II Phokas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your revert. Dhampir has not been borrowed into Albanian from Serbo-Croatian; there are sources that analyze it as Albanian in origin. Relying on a single source to state otherwise gives undue weight to one linguistic tradition. The article you are treating as reliable was self-authored by a Slavic person, and it reflects a heavily Slavic-centered perspective rather than a neutral linguistic analysis.

To clarify, the article I cited was not written by me, and it draws on multiple published works from reliable scholars. It also explains that dhampir follows the regular Albanian rules of forming compound words, which supports the argument for an Albanian origin.

Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the article should summarize all significant, high-quality sources. Please don’t label challenged, source-based corrections as original research.

IEstiv03 (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@IEstiv03: If there are reliable sources supporting your claim(s), then you may add them to the article with due weight. What you did instead (as seen in this diff) was to remove sourced content along with the corresponding reliable sources supporting it, and replace them with antithetical and unsourced claims, in violation of WP:OR. For example, you replaced the sentence about the shift v > dh being a feature of Albanian—which indicates that Albanian dhampir is a loanword from South Slavic—with the entirely unsourced claim that Slavic vampir is a loanword from Albanian, "due to contact and sound substitution (dh > v)". At the same time, you removed the reliable inline citation to the article "Proto-Indo-European 'fox' and the reconstruction of an athematic ḱ-stem", authored by Axel I. Palmér, Anthony Jakob, Rasmus Thorsø, Paulus van Sluis, Cid Swanenvleugel, and Guus Kroonen—who are all academic linguists—and published in the peer-reviewed journal Indo-European Linguistics (2021, vol. 9). On page 252 of that article, we read:

• As the substitution dh- for v- is unparalleled in Romance borrowings, we must be dealing with a dissimilation *v–p > *ð–p. Indeed, additional support for such a development can be found in the borrowing of the South Slavic word for 'vampire', Bulg. vampir, SCr. vàmpīr, as Alb. dhampir. ... Given that dhespër 'evening' and dhampir 'vampire' are both loans, one may wonder whether dhelpë could also be a loan.

You removed that fine source without any explanation and, in its place, added a self-published source from Scribd.com (seen here)—featuring user-generated content derived from a problematic revision of Wikipedia that is more than a decade old—in violation of WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SCRIBD, and without even the source supporting the aforementioned claim of yours. More precisely, that is a revision from 18 July 2014 (seen here), as is clearly indicated at the bottom of the document with the respective URL. Furthermore, that revision is the result of repeated vandalism, and the so-called "multiple published works from reliable scholars" presented in it were used to support a Slavic origin prior to the page being vandalized (diff).

As for the cited self-published article by the so-called "Slavic person", which supposedly reflects "a heavily Slavic-centered perspective rather than a neutral linguistic analysis", which you tagged (diff), I am replacing it with the aforementioned 2021 source. Furthermore, please do not dismiss sources merely on your perception of the author's ethnic background; that's not how Wikipedia operates. Moreover, as far as I know, the aforementioned author is American, and your claim about his lack of neutrality is baseless. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993:: The idea that *v > dh* somehow proves a South Slavic loan is backwards. South Slavic languages do not have the phoneme /ð/ (Albanian *dh*), so they could not have produced it natively on their own. In contact situations, it is far more natural and expected that *dh* would be simplified to *v* by speakers who cannot pronounce /ð/. The opposite shift (*v* becoming *dh*) has no parallel in Slavic and is linguistically unnatural.

This makes the Albanian explanation the straightforward one: *dhampir* is a transparent compound of *dham* (“tooth”) + *pirë* (“drinker”), formed by regular and productive Albanian rules. Meanwhile, Slavic *vampir* is not a native compound at all but itself a borrowing of unclear origin.

Presenting *dhampir* exclusively as a South Slavic loan while ignoring the Albanian formation gives undue weight to a single interpretation. Per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the article must reflect the Albanian compound analysis as the more linguistically consistent explanation, instead of relegating it beneath a one-sided hypothesis.

To be clear, I am not proposing the removal of Kroonen et al. (2021). What I am opposing is treating that single source as conclusive while excluding the Albanian compound analysis, which has its own scholarly backing. Wikipedia policy requires a balanced summary of all significant views, not the elevation of one as fact. — IEstiv03 (talk) 2:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@IEstiv03: Who said that South Slavic has the phoneme /ð/? What was essentially stated, and is supported by a reliable source, is that Albanian speakers adopted the South Slavic vampir, and then dissimilated it to dhampir. I am not going to comment on the uncertainty concerning the ultimate origin of the Slavic word, but suffice it to say that it is likely of Turkic origin (see Upiór). Furthermore, if you have a reliable source (such as a linguistic academic publication) supporting your views, then share it, and I will happily help you integrate it in the article. All I see above is original research. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do trim the infobox further. We also need to introduce the concept of the Turkish General Staff as a predecessor agency into the text. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: I trimmed the infobox further, since we both agree, but feel free to improve it. By the way, isn't the Turkish General Staff the central command authority over the entire Turkish Armed Forces (Land, Naval, and Air)? – Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it's in there. Creation of the TGS in 1920, predating the Land Forces Command in 1949. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC) So did the TGS supervise army forces, and the air force and navy directly before the Land Forces Command was created? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: The Turkish Land Forces Command was established in 1949. Until this date, army commands were subordinate to the General Staff in terms of operations and training, and to the Ministry of National Defense in terms of personnel and logistical support. Since 1950, the Land Forces Command has incorporated all service schools and training centers. See the official website, and particularly § Period 1945–1952. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou! So the Army of the Grand National Assembly, and whatever Navy and Air, was responsible to the General Staff (for ops). Thus the TGS needs to be written up more, and the "Turkish Army" stretches back to before the KKK. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I congratulate you for improving the arrangement I made, but you also left a note. I did not understand what you meant in your note. Ömereditss (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ömereditss: I assume you refer to my recent changes (diff) in the article Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). I didn't leave a note, but an edit summary. I improved the inline citation you added (diff), and reverted the change by User:Elazığ Ahmet (diff). – Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"Manual revert (diff). Was there another Ottoman government, outside Istanbul, to justify this? The inline citation clearly does not refer to it as such. Also, I am correcting the format of another recently added inline citation."

this is Ömereditss (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ömereditss: I explained to you that this is an edit summary of my changes. It also includes my rationale for reverting the change by User:Elazığ Ahmet. Only the last sentence of that edit summary concerns your edit. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you also correct the sources for the battles on the page of Assyrian volunteers I added last? I’d appreciate it Ömereditss (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ömereditss: Done. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can you fix the sources I added again? Check my last edit. Ömereditss (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ömereditss: If you refer to the sources you added in Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), they have already been fixed by User:Xacaranda and User:Kajmer05. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

ok ok So, can you fix Defense of Van? I added sources for that too. Ömereditss (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ömereditss: I fixed them. By the way, you can learn how to do it yourself by reading WP:INCITE; or, you could begin copying the format of other citations in the pages you edit. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Sujoldžić: The fact that Sujoldžić doesn’t explicitly mention that it is a sister language of Greek doesn’t mean that Macedonian was a sister language of Greek. With your logic, if it doesn’t mention that it was a sister language of Thracian, then that would mean we can group them together.

Tomić: The same as above

Mladenovska-Ristovska: have added quotations MacedonLinguist (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of User:HelenHIL. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Sujoldžić (2005) wrote that Ancient Macedonian – along with a number of other Paleo-Balkan languages – seems to be related and have a set of common traits in syntax and morphology with Greek dialects, without specifying the degree of relatedness. In essence, that source didn't exclude a Hellenic classification. Furthermore, Tomić (2006) describing Ancient Macedonian as different from the Ancient Greek dialects, doesn't exclude a Hellenic classification either. On the same page that was cited, she didn't exclude the possibility that Ancient Macedonian belonged to the same branch as Greek; this is also corroborated by her reference to Meillet (1920, p. 187), which I checked as well. Despite these issues, I didn't remove them; I simply tagged them with {{additional citation needed}}, which I believe was justified. Furthermore, neither of those sources focuses on the topic of the Ancient Macedonian language, and thus WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:UNDUE apply. Anyway, a number of other editors also questioned your sources, and your interpretation of them, which is why they are now absent from the article; the minority view which suggests that it was an independent Indo-European language, outside the Greek branch, remains in the article with due weight. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Demetrios1993. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)