User talk:NoeSafeiris

Welcome!

Hello, NoeSafeiris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Professor Penguino (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Winnifrith (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Idoghor Melody was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tom Winnifrith and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NoeSafeiris! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

I've reverted a lot of your edits because the content you added was not present in the sources you cited. What you write needs to be explicitly present in the source. You cannot take a fact from a source and then continue by giving your own explanation. In Wikipedia the editors' analyses don't matter, it's about the sources written by experts. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference I added supported the statement made. Page numbers were given for specific statements. Wikipedia just lost some excellent material because you decided to revert those edits. If there's improvements to be made, let the editor know. I'll see if I can find the time and/or motivation to clarify and improve the work you reverted. NoeSafeiris (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't: it didn't verify "which Zeune was certainly aware of as a German linguist". Drmies (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a political science and linguistics major. Zeune would have to be braindead not to have known that.

Besides this, most of my edits were reverted, but this is the only example given? NoeSafeiris (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeune would have to be braindead not to have known that. if the source doesn't state it, it cannot be added, even if it appears obvious. This is called WP:Original research.

At Vlachs you added a picture you had uploaded apparently without mentioning any license. Unless you took the picture yourself, this is not allowed, and the file will be deleted eventually. At Names of the Aromanians and Aromanians you added the same paragraph with information not present in the source you added. "Latin-Greek" is mentioned once in the whole source and it is discussing the Byzantine Empire. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information was present on page 85 of the source added for the two articles on the "Aromanians", Interdisciplinary Reconstruction of Vlach Ethnohistory. Reminder that official Greek political discourse is written in Greek, and must be translated into English. A term such as Arvanitovlach would probably best be translated as Albanian-Vlach, Albano-Vlach etc. Finding ways to relate this minority groups unique situation to English speakers is a challenge. "Latin-Greek" is a relatable term to an English speaker, and informative of their identity, with the previous "Scots-Irish" term as stated in the text that was reverted. NoeSafeiris (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Latin-Greek' is not mentioned in the source you have given. The argument for the use of that term is purely your own speculations, which comes under the label 'original research', see WP:OR. If you want to include your suggestion in the article, you will need to create a consensus in the article talk page. --T*U (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that is my own speculation... Latinized Greeks, Vlachophone Greeks, Latin-Greeks, these are all terms that are perfectly valid translations of the term(s) used to refer to them in official Greek political discourse, and the most succinct one is Latin-Greeks. There’s a nuance missing in the readily available material on this people group online that makes it clear to anyone much of it has an air of propaganda. That said I will find sources that clarify things better for readers and look into this consensus option you've mentioned. NoeSafeiris (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your job to create relatable terms. That would be the work of a scholar who we would be citing. Please do not continue trying to add this information in its current form. As I said we stick strictly to what the sources say and are not allowed to add our own conclusions, extrapolations or examples. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "creating" relatable terms. If the term from official Romanian discourse is present, "Macedo-Romanian", the term from official Greek political discourse should be as well. It’s only fair to present yet another side, and the one that bears more weight, seeing as how this community is central to the Pindus and Gramos Mountains of Greece, and still reside in the territory known for hundreds and hundreds of years as Great Vlachia, now the greater Thessaly region. Latinized Greeks, Vlachophone Greeks, Latin-Greeks, these are all terms that are perfectly valid translations of the term used to refer to them in official Greek political discourse, and the most succinct one is Latin-Greeks. There’s a nuance missing in the readily available material on this people group online that makes it clear to anyone much of it has an air of propaganda. That said I will find sources that clarify things better for readers. NoeSafeiris (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Tom Winnifrith

Hello, NoeSafeiris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tom Winnifrith, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]