User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 3

Rollback
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You can display the userbox or the  top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For somebody with as many good contributions as you have, you don't need to revert 50 obvious vandalisms before receiving rollback. That's only for the 200-500 edit people who request rollback. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ivan Ivanić
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia)
Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi, Antidiskriminator. What's your opinion on Talk:Treaty of Ferhat Pasha, Talk:Zaza people etc... We need neutral users' neutral and reasonable opinion. Formerly when you were not involved in, we saw incredible result in Talk:Chepni :) -- Takabeg (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

No worries
Thanks for the support! You know the worst thing about being blocked? It's like you're in a soundproof glass room darkened from the outside so you see people and they can't see you. You cannot alert anyone's attention unless they have the foresight to notice you!! So imagine screaming to all your friends "HELP!" but they don't hear. It can be helpful when established editors lend support to one's appeal but on this occasion, Black Kite acted fairly and right now, that is the last person I wish to upset! In the meantime, thanks for noticing and yes, we ALL need to go a bit careful sometimes. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, Antidiskriminator. When do you have time, could you control Talk:Foça, Talk:Fethiye, Talk:Side, Talk:Antalya Talk:Imbros and Talk:Tenedos ? Is this expression is appropriate and encyclopedic for neutral encyclopedia ? I think that user is not neutral. Have you ever investigated these edits ? Do I have to propose topic ban for him ? Takabeg (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sine
Sure but I don't have acces to it right now.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it's going to take a while. I haven't had access to my personal books for several weeks and I won't for a few more. Would you like me to photocopy Frasheri when I get access to it? The only access I have to any of my books is from photocopies but I didn't photocopy any of Frasheri's work.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Translation
The author of this article is V. Nitsiakos. Some parts of the text include the following:

p. 1 (par.2): From the very start of the Albanian National Movement we see a specific view about religion and national identity, mainly reflected in the words of Pascho Pasha... "The faith of Albanians is Albanianism". This view is fundamental and repeated in all texts of the Albanian Rilindja, a fact that proves alone that religion was not at all indiferrent.... and how could it be diferrent since the main criterion of social classification in the Ottoman society was that of religion?Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

p.2 (par.2): Indeed, with the years this myth was widely acccepted and the concept of national unity prevailed against the religious borders.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

p.7 With the collapse of the regime (1991), the issue of religion has been raised again and is off course connected with that of the national identity of the Albanians, under the scope of the search of new ideological directions. The concept that the Albanian state is a secular state and that religion should not be connected with politics, something that is in accordance with the prevailing national ideology, is under discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The above parts are about the author's view. If you need anything specific just let me know.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly what the same author claims.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

?
Hi, Antidisriminator. I'm asking you because I consider you as one of the reasonable and neutral users. A user delete some samples with claiming "personal attack". But I have no intention to attack creator of that map. the inclination of the creator of that map is very clear and users have right to investigate his/her edits in commons. I think a user try to erase evidences to "win" discussion. I'm afraid a user confuses encyclopedia with a kind of field of debate. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This except from WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS should clear it up for you:

''' What is considered to be a personal attack? '''

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:
 * Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
 * Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
 * Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.  Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.  Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.


 * Your tendency to personalize matters by attacking the motives of people who disagree with you falls afoul of this rule. If this is the way you always edit, I'm at a loss to understand why you haven't been blocked for it before now, but if you continue behaving in this manner, I will take the necessary steps to bring it to the attention of an admin or admins for disposal as they see fit. Once again: Discuss issues, and not editors. Always assume good faith. Do not speculate on the motives of other editors without very good reason to do so.  Do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is pushing a POV or clueless about what this project is and how it operates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nish
Hi, Antidiskriminator, As to the source I've used, Nish is not involved in the eyalet of Rumeli. Do you have any sources ? Takabeg (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Map
Hi, again :) Could you control this users edits ? I think he/she can create better map(s). Takabeg (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations!
Thank you very much, Antidiskriminator! It just so happens to be my 20th GA too, and this unique church is definitely a worthy topic :)  — Toдor Boжinov — 11:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do SANU regularly give out licenses? If so, that would be great and I'll contact the Serbian wiki author and ask for assistance. Actually the best to do would be to visit Donja Kamenica, see the church and take some pics myself (I'm in Niš for a few days from tomorrow, but I don't think I'll be able to get to Donja Kamenica because of time and transport constraints).  — Toдor Boжinov — 13:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inexperienced with licenses and I don't know if SANU regulary gives them but I believe sr.wiki author knows it. I also thought about visiting Donja Kamenica because I frequently pass by Niš, but I don't think I will have enough time for that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Paladin Gundulić
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Myth of Skanderbeg for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Myth of Skanderbeg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Myth of Skanderbeg until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Nesting Orientalisms
Hi Antidiskriminator, I have reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Nesting Orientalisms and I have an issue with referencing. Could you see my comments at the nomination page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nesting Orientalisms
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriter speaks 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriter speaks 12:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Short-lived Ottoman provinces
I have opened a new discussion here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Myth of Skanderbeg
The GA review is on hold for an initial seven days. The article has recently been proposed for a merge, and then for a deletion, with no consensus; and has an unresolved multiple issues tag. I'd like to see the multiple issues resolved, and some reassurance that the article has got a degree of stability before I conduct a full review.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple issues of the Myth of Skanderbeg

Hi,

Thank you for your intention to review the article's GA nomination.

I know that every article should have all major issues resolved before getting GA status. I would not even nominate it before resolving all unresolved issues. The article has been created on February 24, 2011 and it was marked with tag for multiply issues (an hour) after its GA nomination.

I think that all tags which are added within multiply issues tag are unjustified and I explained why. Nobody presented any counterargument in the meantime. Although I announced that I will delete all three tags if nobody presents some counterarguments "within reasonable period of time (say one week)" I did not delete those tags because user who added them was inactive in the meantime.

I still believe that adding the multiple issues tag was unjustified. Taking in consideration that user who added them is (temporary) inactive I propose to wait another week for him to reply to my explanation. If he remains inactive during the next week I propose you to check my explaination and if you feel that I might be right to continue your review until he returns to the discussion during your review hopefully.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * NPOV dispute discourages drive-by tagging; however, looking at the talkpage I can see that the person placing the tag has given a rationale for the tags, and has engaged in discussion regarding the issue. GAN isn't dispute resolution - we cannot adequately or appropriately review an article over which a dispute is taking place. The dispute needs to be resolved first. As this article has been the subject of serious dispute I'd like to see the dispute resolved satisfactorily, and then a period of stability of around a month before reviewing. See Talk:Catholic Church/GA1. I am inclined to close this now, though will keep the GAN open for the full seven days to see what happens regarding the dispute resolution. If all parties agree to work together to ensure the article is balanced and neutral, then I will agree to conduct a full review, though I would keep it open for a minimum of one month to ensure stability.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As the multiple issues tag still remains, and there has been no attempt to edit the article to resolve those issues, I have closed the GAN as a fail. The article can be renominated in the future, but all the issues must be resolved first.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fail

Thank you
It's no problem, the article needs to be further copyedited.Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi, Antidiskriminator. How are you ? What do you think of Talk:Istanbul Pogrom ? My strict opposition to permitting socks to edit is partially related with the tragedy upon User:Kebeta. If we had behaved against socks, we might not have lost him. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Albanian translation
Hi there. You asked me to translate this: një interpretim që gjëlloi edhe në vitet '80 të shekullit 20, e pra në prag të krizës së Kosovës, kur propagandistet serbë e brohorisnin Skënderbeun si "bir të Ivanit, Gjorgj Kastrioti, kalorësi serb i Arbërise

Here you go: "One interpretation that was revived even in the '80s of the 20th Century, and therefore on the verge of the Kosovo crisis, when Serbian propagandists cheered Skanderbeg as 'the son of Ivan, Gjorgj Kastrioti, Serbian cavalry of Arbëria'".

Hope that works for you! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Vojsava Tripalda
Hello! I just wanted to inform you that we should finish the work we started. Article Vojsava Tripalda, with numerous problematic parts, are recreated so far by lede and one section, so i ask you what should we do next? Lets finish this.


 * Recreated article
 * Talk for the recreation

Thanks for you great contribution so far. -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See again
Does the second source work? The first one seems to be timed. Rakamomba (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC) see this. I don't have the book, unfortunately.Rakamomba (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Albanian Revolt of 1911
Hello! Your submission of Albanian Revolt of 1911 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Odie5533 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Odie5533 (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Albanian Revolt of 1911
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Scanderbeg
As you know, WP:NOR permits using original sources: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."Majuru (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Vojsava
Hello! Can you, please, remove unreliable, rejected and disputed sources from Talk:Vojsava Tripalda/Temp, and maybe, remove anything that should not be in recreated article? Thank you so much! -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bravo! It is about time to finally finish that... -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Also...
You may be interested in this []. The last page gives a summary in English with a similar view about the Argitis signature.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Blind reverts
If the people of Piperi and other clans don't identify as Serbian please don't classify them as such.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your review
Thank you for your review on Siege of Kruje (1466). I read through all of it and will decide what to about them. Would you mind if I post some responses on the link you gave me?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviews and sieges
I've read the reviews; user:ZjarriRrethues has only commented on the other editor's use of informal language, colorful idioms, and other ethnopolitically-neutral matters. As such, I hardly see any basis for your suggestion that he recuse himself from the review.

Thank you. DS (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Serbian Militia
Well, I have some sources about this, but currently I do not have much time to translate that into English. If I find more free time I will see to expand that article. PANONIAN 17:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sanjak of Ohrid
I had the chance to quickly review your draft of the sanjak of Ohrid. It's a good effort but there are some mistakes: In 1913 it wasn't a sanjak, but a kaza of of Manastir and when its capital city was incorporated in the Ottoman Empire it wasn't under Marko's rule. Although he was an Ottoman vassal he had lost the city since the early 1370s.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw since the territory of the sanjak included large part of central Albania, while in modern Macedonia only Ohrid-Debar were located, any reference to the Ottoman vassal Marko should be precise as if he ever held any part of the territory that would become the sanjak that area includes only part of Ohrid.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Sanjak of Albania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kanina and Klisura (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) 10:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Arpalik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Barleycorn


 * Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Barleycorn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania
--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for forgetting about my promise to give you the reference from Frasheri. I can assure you that you will have your response by tomorrow (ET).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sanjak of Ohrid
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)