User talk:Tidewings

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I am not Gmantakis user. So you should not include him in your report.

Report by user TaivoLinguist
He tries to connect me with another user and say that we are the same in his report Tidewings (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Tidewings. You've been warned per the outcome of this complaint. You may be blocked if you edit again at History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) unless you have received a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Unfortunately, in your situation as a brand-new user, any further problem is likely to produce an indefinite block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed nobody had welcomed you properly, so...
Welcome to Wikipedia, Tidewings! Thank you for your contributions. I have been editing Wikipedia for a little while, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

I hope you don't mind if I offer you a little advice about working collaboratively on Wikipedia. When I first reverted your changes, you took two actions - you created a section on the talk page, and you reinstated your changes. The talk page section was a good idea; the re-revert was not. You haven't been editing long, and I see from your talk page that you've already had some warnings for edit warring. I appreciate that I was perhaps being a little pushy by reverting you a second time, and I'm sorry if that was frustrating, but I've been around a while and I was pretty confident that I had policy-based grounds for the revert. There are a lot of rules and guidelines here, and it can take a while to become familiar with them - while you're getting used to them, if an experienced editor reverts you, I'd suggest that you don't reinstate your change, just discuss it. I was happy to talk it through with you on the talk page, and I'm glad that we were able to work together to arrive at changes that we could all agree on, and generate a consensus with other editors on the talk page - that's a good outcome! I hope I see you around, and happy editing. Girth Summit  (blether) 19:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Girth, and thank you for the very warmth welcome. Yes you are absolutely correct in everything, I am new here and I had a few edit warring warnings mostly due to nationalism feelings of another editor. But it doesn't matter. I tried to write a thank you note on your talk page but to be honest I haven't figured how to do so. I managed to thank you here because you already open a discussion, but I couldn't do the same in your page so I hope you understand. Thank you once again Girth and I hope to talk to you again soon.Tidewings (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's pretty straightforward to leave a message on someone's talk page.
 * First, you need to go to their talk page! Most editors have a direct link next to their username in their signature (with mine, click on the word 'blether', which is a Scottish word for chatting or talking). Alternatively, you can click on their name, and then on the 'Talk' tab at the top-left of the page.
 * Next, if it's the first time you're leaving a note for them, click on the 'New Section' tab. This creates a new section on the talk page - give it a title, and then edit as if you were editing an article talk page.
 * If you are responding to a comment in an existing section, you should see an 'Edit' link next to the section's title - just click on that, and you're ready to comment.
 * As with any talk page, you should sign your comment with four tildes, and indent your comments appropriately - it looks like you already know how to do that, from our previous conversation.
 * One other useful tip - if you are replying to someone anywhere other than their own talkpage, it can be useful to 'ping' them. If you leave a message on my talkpage, I am automatically notified about it; if, however, you leave a message on your own page, or on an article talkpage, I will only see it when I go back to the page - but if you ping me, I get a notification to tell me to look at the page. To ping another user, you type the following: - so, if I wanted to ping you, I would write  . This is particularly useful when corresponding with very active Wikipedians, who might have thousands of pages on their watchlists, and find it hard to keep track of multiple conversations.
 * Hope that helps; again, welcome, and happy editing. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.

Per your edits at this link. You called another user If you intend to stay on Wikipedia you need to work with  others on a basis of mutual respect. If you seem to be too angry to edit neutrally you may be banned from the topic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heck, Tidewings - that was not helpful. If you plan to come back to editing, please use the next 48 hours to think about how to edit collaboratively. I know that it can be frustrating if people are disagreeing with you, but the only way to change contested content is to gain consensus; the most sure-fire way to fail at gaining consensus is to insult other editors and pour scorn on the whole project. Read WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, and when you come back, you might want to think about editing in areas that don't get you so fired up. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear all, Taivo was the first to name me as nationalist POV-pushing. He has influenced other users in order to block me and think of me bad before even begin a conversation on the talk of the page History of Macedoni, and he has made all the efforts to come into a consensus a failure. So I guess maybe you should also address the same think towards that editor too. The first comment he made about my account was that I was a one purpose account. So maybe you should think of who is the one started all thisTidewings (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will have to add finally, since he succeded in not letting me write and reverse his inexistend so called arguements, that he has been unable to present a single fact, evidence or source of validity and reliability against my position, evidence citations and quotations. His examples were a failure and far from reality, and were all answered with facts and evidence. He even presented an example that it was on my favor. Maybe he acts in this ways, because he fears of losing credibility. Finally, he characterised me as Donald Trump making a comparison between me and the leader of the republican party. I had to return to him his characterisation. He is equally, if not more to blame of harassment since he is an experienced as he claims user, and instead of pacifying the situation, instead he pushed in no consensus, leading into a great dispute issue. He is afraid of the history and my knowledge of facts. If you continue in your decission you are closing the eyes on his true blame. He has led from the start to this result. Do you want a one sided wikipedia or a democratic one. Tidewings (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tidewings. This is a pretty short block - you might be as well sitting it out rather than appealing it again. However, if you do want to appeal it, you will not have any success unless you acknowledge what you did wrong. The link that EdJohnston provided above is an unambiguous insult - you wrote that, it's no good blaming another editor for what you wrote. Any block appeal would have to acknowledge your mistake, and confirm your commitment not to repeat it regardless of what other editors say or do.
 * With regard to the other editors' conduct, I haven't read through the entire massive discussion on that talk page, but I scrolled through it quickly; I can see that it quickly became heated on both sides, but I don't see either of the other editors directing outright insults at you. Yes, there were some pointed comments (going in both directions), but nothing that (to my eyes) raises to the level of a personal attack. You obviously care passionately about this subject, but that's all the more reason to be friendly and collegiate in discussions, because that is the best way to build consensus. If you can't keep your cool when discussing subjects that you care about so deeply, my advice would be to stick to editing subjects that you can be dispassionate about. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Girth and thanks for another time for your reply. Our conflict with that user, doesn't start in the talk page. It started in the edition source, before the creation from my side of an account. I will not disagree with your comments above, but to me it seems from his first comment on the edition source of that page that he is also very passionate about it, personally I mean, and a personal goal to never let any truth heard for the side that he does not support. If you see in our dialogue, I was considerate and I even addressed the country with its constitutional name. You can check my words on the edition source of the History of Macedonia (ancient history) page, and you will see that he calls me immediately nationalist, without even care where I come from. Nevertheless, I will revoke what I said of him in the only occesion that he will come to a consensus with me. A consensus that it will include the modulation of the wording that I do not approve as a false, and misleading one of the Ancient Classical Greek world. Dear Girth and everyone else, I will also have to mention to everybody of you that the only way for him to stop me from writting the truth with evidences and reliable citations was to block me. I really hope this is not another trick of him to redirect the real issue, and furthermore not a way to give him time to orchastrate another trick. Finally, if a consensus is made over my discussion I will not even change the wording but I will let the other editors to do it just to prove you that I do it in good faith. But a consensus without the wording that I and history reject as false.Tidewings (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I read what you're saying correctly, it sounds like you're making ultimatums - you will only take back what you said if the other editor comes around to your point of view, and you won't make further edits to the article only if a consensus is reached that you agree with. To be honest, that isn't helping your case. When you were unable to come to a reasoned consensus with other editors, there were formal Dispute Resolution processes that you could have initiated, like an RfCs or request for a Third Opinion; what you did was to insult the other editor, and demand that your viewpoint must be the right one. I'll make this suggestion one more time - take it on the chin and stay away from this whole subject area, at least until you've got more experience of how to go about editing here constructively. Everyone can read the discussions that took place - if other editors agree with your arguments, they might pick up the ball and run with it; I fear that if you go back there when your block expires, you'll end up in another argument, which might lead to a longer block, or even a WP:TBAN. It's your call, but if it was me I'd just walk away. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  14:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I did not express it well then. I meant I wil, revoke what I wrote when he stnads away from his solid stand that the wording must remain as it is. It is not an ultimatum. After all, it is already written what I wrote, I can revoke it, but the other side must also show that he wants consensus. So far, he just wants to block my view. I asked him several times to give him a proposition over my proposition. That is I was willing to re-edit (talk over it). HE only wanted to block my view. If I go back there I won't be involved in another argument for sure. I know how I should act without talk with him. It is obvious he does not let anyone to have adifferent view from his, otherwise he would wnt to discuss my proposition with a counter proposition with the wording I suggested. In fact, this wording I propose does not change the article at all, no Greece or Hellas word is near the word Macedonia and it is much closer to the truth. But still I want consensus and he does not. On the other hand he wants me to stay away of the whole thing and downgrade my position/opinion. The ultimatum you mention maybe it heard like this, but while it is not one, it is the truth isn't it? I have already written what I have, so if we come into a consensus then in fact he proves me wrong of my saying. But the thing is he does not want consensus. I want consensus on the other hand. If I would not want why am I still here????Tidewings (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you see what he did is making a summary of our dialogue so that no-one sees that he has incompetency, no evidence and lack of truth in his saying. This user is biased Girth, and makes everything in that page look badTidewings (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did see the summary on the talk page, yes. He has kept the entire conversation above it however, so other users can check for themselves whether or not his summary is accurate. Everything you have said, and everything he has said, have been retained on the page.
 * With regards to the user's intentions, another thing you might want to read is assume good faith. In fairness to you, he started implying that you were motivated nationalistically quite early in the discussion, and so I don't think he was following this policy either; nevertheless, let's start over and try to think about this from his point of view.
 * I don't know whether you've read our policy on CONSENSUS? It really is worth reading - it's quite short, and gives a lot of good advice. The other editor does not necessarily have to establish a new consensus with you, if there is already a well-established consensus on the page. That's not to say he doesn't have to discuss the matter with you, but he is allowed to argue in favour of retaining an existing consensus version. Quite early in your conversation with him (I am assuming that you were editing from 77.49.110.200 at the time), he gave you three links to conversations that he said established a consensus on the page - that is what he is trying to defend. That version does not necessarily correspond exactly to how he personally would like the page to be; it is likely a compromise wording that he was sufficiently satisfied with back then: Think about how you, and I, and the other editors over at feta thrashed out a consensus wording we could all agree on. When you have been involved in a protracted discussion that arrived at a hard-won consensus, you would be motivated to defend that consensus when someone new comes along arguing for a change. You should have read through the links he provided, evaluated what the different editors were saying in those discussions, considered whether your arguments are new or have already been discussed, and then reconsidered the other guy's position.
 * Now, the links that he has posted there are quite old - 2005, 2009 and 2009/2010. It would be entirely reasonable for someone new to approach the page in good faith and seek to establish a new consensus - consensus can change - by presenting new arguments based on reliable sources. If other editors who are active on the page aren't convinced by the new arguments, the new editor could create an RfC, to try and attract more attention on the discussion and get third parties to chime in.
 * Just to be absolutely clear though, I am explaining how you could have gone about this differently; I am not suggesting that you go and do this immediately once you get off your block. I would strongly recommend that you walk away from this for now, and go and edit in other, less controversial areas for a good long while, to get more experience about how everything works. If, later on, you want to come back to this page, the approach I've outlined above would be a better way to go about collaborative editing, and would be far more likely to be successful.
 * Finally, I'd like to note that I have no view on which side of the argument is correct - I haven't read the article or the sources closely enough to form an opinion on it. I'm trying to help you 'learn the ropes' as a new user, and I have some sympathy with your position because I do think the other editors were a bit bitey with you; nevertheless, it's really important for you to recognise that your response to that biteyness was to become even more hostile and combative about the whole thing than they were, escalating the conflict to the point where you were just throwing insults at them, which is never appropriate. You should acknowledge that, and try to make a change. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Girth, I have read through your talk, and as I said from the first moment at your welcome note, thank you again. I understand your position. I understand fully, considering all the information you gave in the above talk, that the norm is what you write and it should be followed according to rules. I also understand that a new consensus must be reached following the standards provided. I have read also the part you wrote about the 'bit bitey' attitude of the other editors. Let's suppose I became hostile ( I am not saying I did neither I did not).. In case you find time, I do not say or want you to take position with me or the other editors, just check whether I am correct when I say his intention in the talk page was to reach the dialogue from the beginning into a non consensus and to downgrade my initial proposition by irony and editing it into a new version without prior consensus. I may have been in the end hostile. But both of them were from the start ironic, presumptuous of what I have to provide, and as you say bitey. Nevertheless, the only user that was blocked was the new guy (its like having in front of you a wall of deaf people that are saying they cannot hear you). The whole talk was a sharade from their part. They were not really there to discuss anything. They were there to make a sharade of my presentation and citations that were solid, and bullet proof. Thats why they blocked me for two days. I also, came very early to understand that if I would take the whole thing to a dispute resolution the same guys would come along trying to make the same sharade and through the same ironic style and make the whole thing been seen as a downgraded presentation. If you check now the summary he made it is one sided. Things never happened as he presents them. But no I cannot coment I am blocked so he can write whatever he wants. Anyway, thanks for your talk man. What must be done will be done. Cheers mateTidewings (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - a few points (I'll do my best to be brief!):
 * The person who blocked you, and the person who declined your unblock request, were uninvolved administrators. Admins don't adjudicate in content disputes - they focus on behavioural issues (as well as a load of other technical stuff). I very much doubt that either of the admins involved in this case have any view on which side of the argument is correct - like me, they have probably not read the article or sourcing carefully enough to form a view - they will just be looking at conduct. You really should accept that you got yourself blocked - nobody did that for you.
 * I think you are saying that you believe that the other users on the page were intentionally goading you until you snapped, in an attempt to get you blocked? (Apologies if I am misinterpreting you.) I can't rule that possibility out, but AGF means that I can't assume that. I do believe that the other editor on the page failed to assume good faith on your part, and was a bit rude and condescending - but, at the same time, I also assume that you are an adult? You are responsible for your own conduct. This is why I've been saying that it's important that you recognise what you did wrong - I think you're leaning that way, but you're not quite there yet!
 * I think that a dispute resolution method like RfC would have worked better than you suspect. Yes, the other editors on the page would have been able to comment - but RfCs are designed to reach out to the wider community, and get a lot of uninvolved eyes on a subject. It would take a few weeks, but over time a wide range of editors would come along, look at the arguments, and make a comment; eventually, an uninvolved admin or experienced editor would review the arguments, and make a determination about which way the decision should go - and a new consensus (or re-affirmation of the old one) would have been reached. It's not perfect, but it works better than you seem to think.
 * I hope you take my advice and go and work on some other stuff for a while when your block expires - get a real understanding of how things work here, you must have a load of other interests that you could contribute to? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  20:02, 9 January 2019
 * Thanks again for replying. If I do not go back immediately after the block expires, will I be able to go later on for the same discussion or they will not permit it?? What are the rules on that? My evidence and proof, and citations on my part are real, solid and bullet proof and the real issue is that the page as it is has flaws and needs edition to historical truth. On the otherhand the position that this user (if I assume good faith, I am not saying I do or not) is false and misleading. No matter what he thinks he protects. I do not care to change anything on the first sentence or that concerns Macedonia and Greece, since all of them are so sensitive over the issue of name dispute and they do not want the name of Greece near Macedonia. The thing is their supporting speech, and evidence has no stand. They present an ancient civilization into very narrow geographical boundaries that were never real. So can I go back after a while and place again my position? If necessary also, take it to the resolution of dispute ?Tidewings (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As it stands, there are no rules stopping you from going directly back to the article; however, given what happened last time, I'm concerned that you'll lose your cool and get blocked again (it will be longer the second time), or get a topic ban which would prevent you editing in this subject area.
 * Can you explain succinctly what it is you want to change on the page, and what sources you want to use to support the change? I don't plan on reading through the VERY long discussion you had on the article talk page to work out what you want to do there, but if you are able to say in a few sentences exactly what you want to change, and why, I'll take a look at the article and give you an honest assessment of what I think about your argument. Please do note that I won't make these changes for you while you are blocked - I think that's prohibited - indeed, I'm not promising to do anything, as I might disagree with you - but I'd be happy to take a look and offer some advice. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I won't go directly, I will wait for a while. What I want to change is the wording 'subdying/subdued Greece'. The citations are on the talk page I can't rewrite them now professionally, because I will need to pen my word files and it would be a whole deal to do at them moment. I might be able to write them for you after the block expires on your page, just the citations. The issue is that although the page and wikipedia in general claim to be a free encyclopedia where anyone can edit (of cource as I now know following the rules), an encyclopedia must also be accurate, when is needed, and concise. It can't be presumptuous of the readers thought or knowledge, and it can't be biased, regardless of a previous consensus, if that consensus is wrong in front of historical facts. The page according to historical truth, has two standards. One for the strictness with which it presents and treats all the facts in relation to the Kingdom of Macedonia (they make everyeffort to show to latest detail what was Macedonia) before and after Alexander the Great, and another one when it comes to Greece, that is a very big part of ancient Macedonia history the page oversimplifies everything. So according to the editors of the page it is oka when they talk about ancient Macedonia to include all conquered territories of the campaign, but Greece on the other hand was just Peloponnese and Central Greece, and maybe Thessaly.Crete, Aegean islands, Southern Italy, sicily, Asia Minor, all these places and more are not Greece but collonial Greece, hence Phillip the second conquered Greece according to those editors when he defeated Athens and Thebes in a war between the three Greek rivalries.. The rest of Greece did never exist.. they do not even care that Macedonians fought against Athens and Thebes with the aid of Cretans..Frankly I do not get it how can you conquer or subdue someone that he aids you at the same time?? So the common reader that will come in that page to get some info, reading through the page will get to wonder in the end of what was actually ancient classical Greece, just 3 or 4 cities?? If Phillip subdued it all that was it.Probably the people in Asia Minor were Turks already from the 7th century BC right? Their hillarious claim over this oversimplification is that Greece is another think of colonnial Greece because modern day Greece has the territories without collonies. Well, in that case they are no only biased but also a bit un-smart (I will say for being inside the proper conduct) because in that way they annul every claim of them that they do not want the word Greece near Macedonia in the ancient kingdom because, according to them MAcedonia transformed into the centuries. Well if Macedonia transformed into the centuries so did Greece. You either have one standard or you are no good, misleading and biased. That is in a short text what is my version. Sorry actually it wasn't very short. If they were not so tricky I would be shorter, its quite simple my logic actually.Tidewings (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy to wait until your block is lifted, you can put it on my talk page. Please make it specific though - eg: In section, I want to change  to . Please work on the assumption that I haven't read any of the stuff on the talk page - I have taken a look through it, but it's difficult to make sense of with all the 'heat' (from both sides), and a concise statement about what, exactly, you want to change would make it a lot easier for me to evaluate. I'll take a look when you're ready. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether) 22:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing I forgot to write, at this moment a population of 150000 Greeks, with date of existence in the territory going back to the 5th century BC lives in Pontus. This are not Greeks for them. they also told me that Greece is a modern concept not an ancient concept . In antiquity they were not called Greeks the Greeks according to their claims...Tidewings (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on ancient Greece, but I know a little bit about early-modern European state formation. Is it possible that there is some confusion going on between Greece, the modern nation state, which has a unified governmental structure, armed forces under the direct control of that government, a civil service that persists between changes in governments, a national taxation system, etc. etc.; and the ancient Greek culture and civilisation, which spread across a wide geographical region at different points in its history, and had diverse and changing centres of political, financial and military power? Can we consider the ancient Greek culture in the same terms as we consider a modern country?

To draw a comparison with my own country/culture: I live in York, in England. If I were to go back in time about 1,400 years, I would be living in Eoforwic, in the Kingdom of Northumbria. I would be surrounded by people who were English (or Anglian), speaking a language that was a direct precursor to modern English, and living according to laws, customs and culture that would have been recognisable in any other part of the English (Anglo-Saxon) lands. People would refer to themselves as English people, and they would probably say that we were living in the land of the English - Angle Land - but nobody would have recognised the idea of a single political entity called England. As a loyal Northumbrian, I might have followed my king to war against the English kingdoms of Mercia, East Anglia, or Wessex; or we might have fought the Scots, or the Danes from across the North Sea. Depending on when exactly I was there, I might have fought alongside other English kingdoms against the Danes, or later I might have fought alongside the Danes against the other English kingdoms. It would be a long time until the idea of a single country called 'England' emerged - and even then it was a precarious union held together by the personal inheritance of the king, rather than anything that could be compared to a modern, stable nation state.

I'm not making any kind of judgement about your arguments (which I'm not very familiar with); I'm just raising the idea that it is possible to have a common culture, language, legal system and even name (English), without actually belonging to anything that you could reasonably describe as a country. I wonder whether this is a distinction that you and the other editor might be getting stuck on? Anyway - as I've said, if you provide specific details of the changes you want to make, and the sources you want to use to support the changes, I promise to make good-faith efforts to evaluate them and feed back to you on what I think. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  23:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Girth for your reply once again. I agree with everything you say. To give you a precise example and association so you will understand that what I say is not so far from what I say, on what you already presented to me, please tell me, if you would leave in such a place in the ancient Kingdom of Northumbria that I personally got to learn about it through the excellent tv series Vikings of History channel, would you be called Northumbrian and English at the same time and you would speak an Anglican dialect?Tidewings (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And also, in the case that Mercia would won a war against Northumbria would Mercia have subdued all of England of that era? Or If the Scots had won a war against Northumbria, or if the Danes would have a won a war against Northumbria would have then had subdued the modern day boundaries of England or England of that era?Tidewings (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To the first question - yes, I would be Northumbrian and English at the same time. I would be culturally English, and spoken a precursor to modern English, and I would be Northumbrian in terms of where I was from, and which king I owed allegiance to.
 * As to the second question - Mercia defeating Northumbria would not have been subduing all of England - there were other kingdoms they would have needed to defeat to achieve that. (If I remember correctly, I think that the kings of Mercia did subdue Northumbria eventually, only to be subdued themselves shortly afterwards by invading Danes!) In the end, the various kingdoms were brought together largely by intermarriage between the royal families, and the crowns coming together until the kingdoms were all held by Athelstan.
 * Can you explain where you're going with this - what is it about the article in question that you think should change? Girth Summit  (blether)  15:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer, below I bulleted my view and the flaws of that page:


 * Macedonians of that era spoke a dialect of Dorian Greek (Spartan Greek), and were mostly shepards and not well educated like the rest of the Greeks. although they themselves considered to be Greeks, Athens because of its excellence in everything especially politics and science had a low view on them hence Demosthenes speeches against them, but only Greeks participated in the Olympics and Macedonians did participate iin the Olympics.
 * The page writes that Phillip II subdued Greece in 338 BC in the battle of Chaeronea. The truth is that in battle of Charonea in 338 BC participated in one side Macedonians and Cretans and on the other side Athenians and Thebes. Phillip II won a war against Athens and Thebes (while Crete was in his side, but wven if Crete was not on his sde he only won a war only against Athens and Thebes). Modern day Greece has the following Regions: Crete, Aegean islands, Ionian islands, Peloponnese, Central Greece, Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace (Athens and thebes are in Central Greece). Ancient Greek classical era city states stretched from Southern Italy, Sicily, Crete, Peloponnese, Central Greece, Epirus, Macedonia° (they do not accept that thats why the mark over Macedonia), Thrace, Asia Minor, Aegean Islands and Pontus. Even in the case where thwy claim that colonial Greece is not Greece becuase of the confederation kind of relation between the independent city states and kingdoms (hence as they say you can't refer to Greece as Greece because then there was not yet a unique nation/entity (I strongly disagree), why do you refere to it as Greece in the body of the text? To sum up this bulleted point, Modern Greece was much larger, while in the ancient era you claim that not such nation existed (I strongly disagree there once again) . So you either have 2 standards, that in good faith means you made a mistake, or you do not see clearly, or finally you are biased. It is actually an oxymoron the whole thing
 * Independently if the English version of wikipedia thinks of ancient Macedonian kingdom to be Greek or not (the Greek version does consider it Greek but nevertheless), you cannot say that by winning a war over two cities or 5 or 6 of a nation/kingdom/confederation or whatever( that was comprised or is in the present day comprised of 50 cities ( a much larger area)) that you sudbued that nation/kingdom/confederation! you just won the war against only a part of it and because that part is so small you must mention it by the name or you spread lies, that is my opinion and I think it is very clear.Tidewings (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that summary. I've also just had a look through your contribution history to see what you were changing on the article. If I understand it correctly:
 * There was disagreement about whether or not we should be calling the ancient kingdom of Macedonia a Greek state or not. You wanted to refer to it as an ancient Greek state; and you wanted to change 'Greece' to 'the other Greek states' (thereby implying that Macedonia was a Greek state) - is that a fair summary? I don't have a view on that - I don't know enough about the history of ancient Macedonia. We'd need to look at what modern, reliable sources say - if they say it is a Greek state, then so should we; if they don't, we shouldn't. It comes down to how modern-day scholars describe it.
 * There was a lot of discussion about 'Greece' includes everywhere in the Greek world, or everywhere they had collonies and cities. I don't really buy that - for comparison, England wouldn't have become part of Scandinavia if it had ultimately been conquered by the Danes; it didn't become part of Normandy when it was successfully conquered by the Normans. There were Greeks living in, ruling and building cities in southern Italy and elsewhere, but that doesn't make those places a part of Greece. Unless lots of reliable sources generally refer to Greece as everywhere that you found significant Greek populations, that isn't going to fly.
 * There was also some discussion about whether to refer to wars between Macedonia and various Greek states as civil wars. It doesn't look like the sources are calling them that, and to be honest I don't think they could fairly be called civil wars - that would imply a battle between different factions to control a country that had previously been unified. Again, with the English comparison: nobody would describe wars between Mercia and Northumbria as civil wars; but after England was unified, there were a number of conflicts (such as The Anarchy, the Wars of the Roses and the English Civil War), which are uncontroversially described as civil wars. They only start being called that after the country had been unified into a single political body, ruled by a single king, and generally involved fights about who that king should be (or, in the last case, whether the king was ruling well enough to govern). Greek city states shared a common language and culture, and came together at times to fight external threats, but they weren't politically unified in a way that would make the phrase 'civil war' appropriate.
 * You made a point about needing to be alien to something in order to subdue it. I don't agree with you there - if the king of Mercia had defeated all the other English kings to take their crowns, I think it would have been fair to say that he had subdued all of England - even though Mercia was a part of England. The only reason we don't apply that word to Athelstan was because he inherited the crowns, rather than winning them militarily.
 * I note that the other editors were prepared to give ground on the question about whether to say 'subdued Greece' or 'subdued most of Greece'. That seems reasonable - if Sparta wasn't subdued, then we should make it clear that it was not all of Greece that was subdued. 'Most of Greece' seems like a reasonable compromise.
 * I'm not sure if I've missed anything - there was a lot there on the talk page! To be honest, I don't really agree with most of the changes you were proposing. The only one I am not sure about is whether or not to describe Ancient Macedonia as a Greek state. What do the sources say - are there modern scholars who refer to it as a Greek state? That's what we would be looking for - modern scholarship, not what ancient writers had to say about it. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Very quickly: Sparta was not sudbued, Agreed! Crete was not subdued. Aegean islands were not subdued. Those are three different parts of ancient Greece as they considere it (my consideration of ancient Greece is a totaly different thing). For sure Phillip II did not subdue Greece or most of Greece. Its like Mercia subduying other English kingdoms. Its not enough to subdue only Northumbria. YOu must to the same with Cornwal, Wessex and so on. Phillip II had to conquer many more places in ancient Greece to subdue the Greek city states. But also why do they refer to Greece as Greece if they claim there was not yet formed in that era yet a Greek nation? In that case they should call the war as it was Macedonia vs Athens and Thebes else its not true.Tidewings (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * About Macedonia being Greek in antiquity there are plentiful modern scholars Anglo-Saxons that support that. Thanks again Tidewings (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Quickly then:
 * Greece, most of Greece, large parts of Greece - these are nuances, exact wording could be discussed, and I think a calm and measured approach to determine the best language might generate a new consensus. The best way to approach this is use language that scholars use - how do they describe the outcome of those campaigns? If they user language like 'Greece', or 'most of Greece', then that's what we should use; if they use different language, then so should we.
 * If plenty of modern scholars say that ancient Macedonia was Greek, please provide references - that's the only thing that would justify a change to the page. (I definitely don't require the scholars to be Anglo Saxon by the way - although it would be good if they wrote in English, so we can avoid any disagreements about precise wording of translations. It would probably also be good if they weren't Greek or Macedonian, simply so that no arguments of bias could be used against them.) Quality of the sources is what would count here. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are to talk about Macedonia in antiquity being Greek or not (something that I did not initiate in the talk page of that page, I only said to change the wording subduying Greece) we will do it separately. The discussion over how to address the wording about large parts or some parts of Greece, I am open to that. But also must be done separately as I see it. I however disagree on that we should use the wording of the scholars and how they describe with their own words, since a consensus will never be made on that. I would oppose to soemthing that wouldn't be to me good enough as a reliable source to be used as wording and the same would the other editors probably do. The scholars and resources I believe it is best to be presented on the day of the discussion, separately each topic of course to be made a consensus and on different days. Thanks againTidewings (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One last thing. I agree to not use Greek or FYROM modern scholar sources. However it is very unfair for a civilization so old that build the foundations of westrn world not to be permitted ancient Greek sources. Therefore, NON Greek ancient scholar sources must also be permitted, after all those of the same era and of not the same blood are the most reliable sources. Don't we do the same today, as you proposed no Greeks and no FYROM scholars of our time will be included. Thanks againTidewings (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I'm not clear on how many of the policy pages that you've been given links to you've actually read - let's start with (arguably) the most important one - reliable sources. Please read that - ancient sources are not permissible, we will only consider modern, scholarly work. Greek work would not be impermissible, I'm only suggesting that avoiding it would avoid any potential arguments against it. I don't see why you wouldn't suggest any sources now - I'd be interested to see what is available, in order to form a view on whether I support your suggestions or not. Cheers   Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good morning Girth. Sorry if I have not replied earlier, but I am not always online (work and other daily stuff). I will have to come back on that about the permissible sources, I understand that you know about them but me being knew in everything I have to rad through everything from the start. Although I do not buy why ancient sources are not allowed since modern day scholarship is based on ancient sources, otherwise how can even form an opinion on antiquity? No modern scholar was ever present in another time epoch, so he/she must base the scholarship on previous scholars (ancient) and the archaelogical findings. So the best way to have a reliable and valid opinion is to use scholarship of the same era of people not of the same nationality/entity/kingdom (call it whatever you want). In good faith I understand that you want to be informed of my sources and form an opinion youself. But that also means that the editors opposing my potential contribution or position or view would also view my sources before the day of the discussion (while on the other hand will not have a view on their). So it is not fair. I will have to wait in the case we discuss further in the future the wording of 'subduing Greece', so that my personal view has any fair and equal chances to be heard and a consensus (I personally think they will never accept my view) to be reached. Sorry, about this I understand that you want to make your opinion but this is my talk page, and also your talk page are not places for the public to come and get to know of facts. I will have to wait for the day of the discussion.Tidewings (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I think wikipedia allows ancient sources. Below I am quoting from Wikepedia reliable sources:

"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. "Tidewings (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That sentence is indeed there in WP:RS; I take it you also read the very next sentence after it though? This comes down to what Wikipedia editors are expected to do - we are not here to interpret sources - we are here to reflect and summarise how historians interpret sources. From experience, I am sure that attempting to interpret and synthesise content directly from ancient sources would be seen by the community as WP:OR - modern scholarship, on the other hand, would be uncontroversial. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for what I will write, but in that sense, the position or scholarship of a writer of the Roman Era in regard to the scholarship/work of a writer of ancient Classical Greece is totally acceptable. The former is not an OR. It seems that this must also be addressed to the administration of Wikipedia. If in fact there has been taken extra attention on the Wikipedia reliable sources section about historical events issues taken differently when discussed, then and forgive me of my strong believe here, editors should follow that path and not an interpretation of the sentence. Look I will be honest here. wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is not to be taken as a reliable source from what I have read on the rules section but rather an effort of the wikipedia community. There seems to be grave and tremendous administration mistakes, and misleading issues both in the pages (from what I have seen that relate to food policy, and history) and in the rules section. Its oxymoron the whole thing that is implied above ( we either must take into account the most relevant historical resource which in that case is the resource of close to that era but not of the same era, or we try to make interpretations for the sake of I do not know or I won't dare to say who's benefit). Maybe pages of pages of historical events are then build and structured in first the place unreliably.. I have to think about it further and discuss it also with another department Faculty in the University, since I come from the Science field. Thanks againTidewings (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain again. We, as editors, are not supposed to make interpretations ourselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not attempting to create new knowledge, or determine what the truth is about any issue. Instead, we are trying to be a repository of existing knowledge, reflecting what the current thinking in academic circles is. If there is broad consensus amongst scholars about an issue (for example, most geologists now agree that the theory of plate tectonics is correct, whereas 75 years ago it was very controversial), then we present that consensus. If an issue is contested, as appears to be the case here, then we present and attribute arguments on both sides, but try to be neutral in how we write about them. Going back to Roman writers would be necessary if we are writing about the Roman view of an issue, but it wouldn't be relevant for how we present current academic thinking - instead, we would want to present how modern scholars interpret those Roman sources. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt the fact of the effort towards a repository of knowledge. But Science (and trust me when I say this) is not history. History cannot be re-written, becuase it has already happened. There is a say about history that 'History makes Geography seems like a prostitute'. you said above that some Greeks were in Southern Italy building up some cities. I did not touch this earlier because it a totally different issue. Lets suppose however, you are right. Now you say (or rather you refer to what wikipedia writes) that modern scholars when they do a peer review are more reliable than ancient scholars because (and lets be sincere here) that is the modern way of things in the academy. Supposedly after 1000 years a new way of things is dominant in the academy, and that system says that England was never England, and furthermore Englishmen were not Englishmen actually at any time but rather they were trying to build cities in the UK, that 1000 form now always supposedly is Russian land (because maybe Russia takes over there in the future,God forbid, no war is good and everybody must work in peace). In that case who is most reliable the Scholars of today that have the knowledge first hand of the situation in England, or the future scholars that will do a peer review or the future facts. Furthermore since wikipedia is made as a repository of knowledge the actual truth what would be??? England in 2019 was or wasn't England? Thanks againTidewings (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail on the head there - yes, absolutely, if modern scholarship said that England had never existed, and that Englishmen were actually Scandinavians/Russians/androids from the planet Zarg, then that's exactly what Wikipedia would say. I probably wouldn't like it, I would probably think it was wrong, but I'd have to accept it - that's the policy. If the majority of reliable sources said that the sky was green, or the moon was made of cheese, then so would Wikipedia. Arguing here that modern scholarship is wrong is known as righting great wrongs, and it's not permitted. If you want to add something to a page that isn't supported by the current academic consensus, you first need to become an acknowledged expert in the field, then write a field-defining academic book or peer-reviewed journal article, and change the academic consensus; once you've done that, we will the relevant Wikipedia article. Our goal is not to represent the truth - it is merely to summarise and reflect what relevant experts in any given field say the truth is. When there is disagreement amongst historians (or medics, or physicists, or geologists...), we try to stay neutral by describing and attributing the competing theories. But when there is general agreement, we reflect that (although we may also describe (fringe theories so long as we describe them as such).
 * As an aside - you said that history cannot be rewritten - please forgive me, but that is objectively wrong. The past itself doesn't change, but how we think about it and how we talk and write about it changes all the time - what do you think classicists, mediaeval historians and early modernists do all day? Everything they study happened centuries ago, but they still do archival research, write books, go to conferences and get into heated debates... History isn't just a list of events that happened in the past - it's about interpreting things that happened, discussing what caused what, comparing change over time, contrasting different periods and locations with each other and thinking about why they are different. That changes - our aim is to reflect the current state of the field. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So in other words the current page of "History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) its okay to lie??? Even if the truth is obvious and different?
 * Also when I said history cannot be re-written I meant not the discussion of how things happened but what has been done has been done and can't be changed. the fact that I addressed to the other user as I did can't be changed. It is a past action. the view of the reasnos of my doing can change, even argued if the words that I said were harassment or not, the action however can't be disputted. In that sense Southern Italy in Classical ancient time was Greece. The action of being there can't be disputed. Nevertheless, back to the above dialogue. If lies are permissible what is the sense of a repository of knowledge? If lies are permissible? Tanks againTidewings (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand that using words like 'lie' does not strengthen your argument - it goes against WP:AGF, and it will make other editors less likely to want to engage with you. The old saying goes 'you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar'.
 * To address your question - the 'truth' might be obvious to you, and someone else might believe in a different 'truth'. We aren't competent to determine which 'truth' is correct, and we don't even try to - we leave that to the academics, and reflect what they write.
 * If a page misrepresents the sources, that is not OK and it needs to be changed.
 * If there are significant, well-sourced views that are contrary to what is on the page, that is not OK and it needs to be changed.
 * But if the majority of scholarly sources are wrong about something, then yes, it is OK for us to be wrong about it too - indeed, it is our duty.
 * As I said above, we are not trying to determine what the truth is, we are just trying to show what modern experts in the field say about a subject. FWIW, this kind of argument goes on again and again at lots of science pages too. If you go and have a look through the history of the talk pages at Evolution, MMR Vaccine or AIDS Denialism, you will see lots of people coming along demanding that we tell the truth, and that Wikipedia is biased, etc. The response is always the same - we aim to reflect what the mainstream opinion of experts in the relevant field say.
 * Finally, and this might a matter of linguistics, but I would not say that southern Italy was part of Greece in ancient times. I'd say that it was Greek (adjective), but not part of Greece (noun). Compare it to somewhere like Australia - it was colonised and ruled directly by Britain, it was part of the British Empire, British people built British cities, spoke English, thought of themselves as British - but no-one would ever have said that Australia was a part of Britain, without at least having some qualifying language around it to explain what you meant. Perhaps it's different in the Greek language? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 14:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I refer to it as Greece since the Villagers of Southern Italy especially the elders, even nowadays consider them selves Greeks, speak the dialect Griko, communicate without interpret with Greeks and there is even an occasion of an old woman some years ago that when some visitors from Greece came to her village for tourism with a guide, she asked him in Griko when the others had left "where are they coming from" (she meant the tourists), and the guide said told her from Greece. The lady responded then, "is there another Greece than ours". All this I have watched it on a facebook video about the Griko dialect of southenr Italy. Furthermore Greeks in Italy settled very early and never occupied foreign land, the land was empty its totally different than the USA, Australia, or India. Thanks again GirthTidewings (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll make another British comparison then. Northern Ireland is part of the UK (formally the United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). It has been under British rule for centuries, and much of the population considers itself British - but nobody refers to it as a part of Britain, they always use the adjective British. Perhaps it is a linguistic thing - certainly, I'd agree with you that those are Greek people, living in a place that is Greek - but that doesn't mean that it is Greece. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think this part of the discussion is a bit of a distraction - it really doesn't matter whether you or I think that southern Italy is or ever was a part of Greece, we should be guided by the sources. We summarise what they say, without synthesising new opinions. More reading for you: WP:V and WP:SYNTH. I hope that's clear. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the same Northern Ireland with Magna grecia. They have different ethnotic roots (Irish the first anglo-Saxon the latter) despite the fact that they consider themselves British or speaking British. Magno Greci do not have Latin roots. Plus Greeks moved there as they moved in the Balkan peninsula in the 11th century BC. And it is not what I say or you or anyone, there are sources that write all these. I will go through the rest of the material on wikipedia you provided me. However, if you are an admin (I do not know) maybe you should address the problem in the rules, since it is a place to act as a repository of knowledge, that I mentioned above to someone on wiki so to get on it. thanks againTidewings (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't think any of that matters - but neither does my opinion on it. The only thing that would matter, for the purposes of writing Wikipedia articles, is what the sources tell us.
 * I'm not an admin - I'm a regular editor like you, just with a bit more experience, and a few permissions that let me make anti-vandalism changes and review changes to controversial pages.
 * Regarding the rules - admins can't change them actually. The rules are created, and modified, by community consensus. The opinion of admins tends to carry quite a bit of weight in discussions, but that's generally because of their experience, rather than their status, and the opinion of experienced non-admins can be given equal weight. To be honest with you though, I don't see the problems you're talking about - I'm content with the rules as they are, I think that they work well. There are lots of online encyclopedias around, and many of them have different rules - but Wikipedia is the biggest and most respected one, largely because the rules help to keep the articles accurate, up to date and neutral, for the most part.
 * Now, your block has expired, and you're free to make changes again. Please do read the stuff I gave you, and give me a shout if you have any questions. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)