User talk:Erasmus2001

May 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced or remove sourced content, as you did at Montenegrins, and several other pages, you may be blocked from editing. Also using multiple ip is considered sock puppetry Theonewithreason Theonewithreason (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As i am new to this, can you please elaborate on what constitutes a valid source in this case. The book by prof. Budak and the historical De Administrando Imperio have both been removed by you. Budak refers to direct byzantine historical sources and DAI is a historical document.

I have read up on the WP:RS and have made sure my sources are open access, reputable and easy to read, as per advice by another user here. Erasmus2001 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAI was not removed by me, it was moved to another section, also I left the construction of the sentence as you formulated, on the other hand you were cherry picking Budak, reforming sentences based on your opinion which is WP:OR I would suggest that you do not remove reliable sources, do not make sentence constructions based on your own political opinions, and try to make NPOV based on multiple sources.Theonewithreason Theonewithreason (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which part of my edit was reformed based on my opinion?

I was not cherrypicking Budak. You can find his conclusion on page 46, second paragraph of the Duklja Chapter. The first paragraph he elaborates on his sources.

As for my edits being based on my political opinions, I could say the same about you, so lets try to keep it civil.

So can I add both DAI and Budak in addition to your sources? Instead of replacing those sources then. Erasmus2001 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don′t have to add DAI since it was never removed, additionally as I have left the word construction like you formulated, As for Budak he also says that Serbian ethnogensis was formed by the time DAI was written, that with the political name spread a ethnic name too, this is a fact that is differently interpreted by historians, so Budak is not a only reference to that.

As for adding Budak to it, yes he can be added, but again as you can see in article, "De Administrando Imperio does not mention which Slavic people lived in Duklja" part is still there, followed by DAI source. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will add Budak as an additional sentence to present differing opinions, is that acceptable?

Erasmus2001 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Montenegrins. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

may i ask why I was warned about vandalizing? I did not remove any sources, i simply added what is written in the given source (DAI) for context.

DAI doesnt mention which slavic people lived there, but in the chapter 32 the document lists the lands given to the Serbs to inhabit, which doesnt mention duklja. This is important for historical context. Erasmus2001 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no it is not important for historical context, since one of the reason why DAI does not mention Dioclea being inhabited by Serbs is because it was part of Prevalis province which was not under Byzantine control at the time, later Byzantine sources do mention Serbs living there like Skylites, so as I said, that is called cherry picking, and also WP:Undue. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skylites is the only author to state that, according to Budak (page 46). Other byzantian authors are not so specific (they call them Docleans or Croats). In addition, Skylites doesnt refer to Duklja as Duklja, he calls it Serbia, a clear error on his part, as Duklja rulers didnt refer to their country as Serbia.

Also, chapter 22 of DAI does not talk about Duklja, but about lands given to Serbs to inhabit. It is hugely important when talking about who inhabited Duklja. Erasmus2001 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is simply not true, many old Byzantine authors mention Serbs inhabiting Dioclea, like Kedrenos etc. Not just that we also have modern historians arguing in that favour. I am sorry, I tried to help you but I see now that there is obviously a goal here from your part, bye. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can say there is a goal on your part as well. But lets call it here cause its leading nowhere.

Also, Can I add the edit i mentioned in the comment above with out getting banned? the one about budak. Erasmus2001 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, thank you for your time on this, despite our differences. I imagine it can be draining looking after so many articles on the wiki, so I appreciate the time and pointers. Erasmus2001 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBMAC

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Theonewithreason (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]