Talk:Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence

POV
Pearson is RS and about a year ago Alexikoua couldn't prove the opposited. On the other hand he's even removing quotes from sources he has added because he doesn't like them i.e the article is tagged for POV.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually he is partisan literature as administrators have already explained []. In fact Kondis is much more detailed in his description and is a secondary.

Unfortunately I see just the typical ultranationalistic pattern to attack every article of quality, like gas and dyks nominated ones.Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't attribute comments and explanations to others and btw your comment about ultranationalistic patterns to attack articles is npa.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just mentioned one of Dbmann's past arguments. Since Pearson as admins explained is part of a partisan literature, seems there is no real reason for this tag.Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a comment of FutureP so please don't attribute to him your explanations. Btw about a year ago you couldn't explain why Pearson isn't rs and you don't even quote your own sources. Why did you remove that the bishop was expeled because he was the instigator of the issues? You added the Kondis quote, so at least stick to it.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this dispute make the entire article POV. Seems more like a case of wp:idontlikeit. Athenean (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The text already mentions that it happened 'as a result' of the uprising. It doesn't change much if we add 'he was suspected as an instigator', I'll fix it.Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Future Perfect at Sunrise, an admin deems Ruches "second-rate", but Ruches is still in the article, while Alexikoua makes sure, instead, to remove Pearson. In addition, Alexikoua removed the merge template that I hade entered, when a merge process requires more time and at least a third party. On top of that Alexikoua removes my comment from the DYK process: is that even allowed? The article right now is forking for much of its content with Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, that's why I started a merge process. Ruches, a non reliable source, is still being used, and widely in both articles btw. This is what I call double standards in order to push the Greek POV: Eliminate English sources like Pearson, and push with the Ruches, already trashed by admins. No wonder why there is a POV tag, which is hastily taken away by Athenean while this discussion is still ongoing. I would invite someone to tell me what is being said in this article that is not already included in the other article. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your knowledge of past comments by wikipedia editors, your WP:LAWYERing, and the zeal with which you follow me and Alexikoua around are truly astounding for a "new" user. Athenean (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)The fact that Ruches is still on the article is enough for at least a pov-check tag. Btw the quote says that the Dutch had proof and not that they suspected him of being the instigator and Pearson is rs, so take it to RSN.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Newsflash: The article passed a NPOV check when it made it to DYK. Of course, that would the wikipedia community definition of NPOV, not yours. Your latest edit is essentially a revert, and duly noted as such. Athenean (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You reverted my pov tag and I added pov-check tag i.e not a revert.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Same wine, different bottle, i.e. most admins would consider it a revert. Wanna bet? Athenean (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike others, even if we assume that it's a revert it would still be only one. Btw Alexikoua why did you change having proof to suspected?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is nothing more than a concerted, tag-teaming ,bad-faith attempt to sabotage a perfectly good DYK, and is duly noted for future reference. Athenean (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua please don't attribute to sources your or since says only that someone in Himarë proclaimed autonomy and doesn't include the rest of these places you added. Btw please stick to your own sources, which don't say that a number of cities joined the movement, but that the region also included them.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[] Unfortunately it isn't my 'or', please read the source carefully, there were a number of towns that proclaimed autonomy declarations from the very start(Sarande, Delvina, Gjirokaster and Himare).Alexikoua (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You had added the wrong link of the snippet.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruption by Zjarritues
Seems this behavior is still in full swing. This edits [] have a misleading edit summary and are falsifying the sourced material (there were initially seperate declarations []+ there was a self governed state[], not just a autonomous region as per sources). Please avoid childish editting and use right descriptions in the edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source says that it included those towns, not that they joined a movement so please stick to the sources. Btw the first link is your mistake since you had added a link which included only Himarë and none of the other towns/villages.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry? this part is quite clear, just by clicking it reveals the full sentence.Alexikoua (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The full sentence says that the region included them, not that they joined a movement.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no Korce in Epirus
It's Korytsa as noted on the 1919 Declaration of Northern Epirotes that was sent to the Paris peace conference after WWI.