RevivedCicero
RevivedCicero, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
 |
Hi RevivedCicero! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
May 2021Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Democratic Party of Albania has been reverted. Disambiguation link notification for June 29Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Orthodoxy in Albania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illyricum. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for September 10An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Orthodoxy in Albania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National, Identity and Ottoman. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 21An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
 If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
 RevivedCicero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: Read carefully, it might be interpreted as war by editors who do not agree with facts presented by other editors who have facts that are contrary to their established believes, but it simply is not war editing. My editing is based on facts that the other editors do no consider facts. Especially when it comes to the fact of the language which were carefully explained in the talk section of the page and have already been removed. Now if my statement where not facts those editors would have not removed them, because everyone would have laughed at them. For example, if an editor would say the Germans are actually Chinese the first thing that serious editors would do is leave that talking point there and argue based on facts that actually Germans are not Chinese. Another example, lets say someone says that the Germans are Nazis. The instant reaction would be to remove that talking point because Germans know that the Nazis have denigrated and harmed the perception of the Germans in manners that probably will never be cured. Exactly the same is regarding my talking points. If my talking points were not true they would have left them in there an argue that are not true, but instead these editors not only removed and edited my talking points but also tried to block me. Now think through this because you seem to be a highly educated individual and intellectual. RevivedCicero (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: You seem to think that you were blocked for the content of your edits, or that people disagree with them; that is not why you were blocked. You were blocked because you are acting as a truth warrior; what we are concerned with more is what is verifiable- see WP:TRUTH. You have also edited disruptivtely. This block was correctly placed, and I see no grounds here to remove it. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. A word about your explanation that you were not edit-warring. You evidently think that edit-warring doesn't count as edit-warring as long as you are certain that your edits are right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that they were right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. JBW (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC) RevivedCicero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: Unfortunately some of the editors who have requested to block my account based on their edits seem not to be fully proficient in the English language. Editors who are not fully proficient in the English language should not dictate who edits in the English version of the Wikipedia. This war-editing accusation might stem from that fact as well. Would you please do me a favor and unblock me?RevivedCicero (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: See the decline of your unblock request below. JBW (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. RevivedCicero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: Would you be able to show war-editing? The reason why the account is blocked is not because of edit-warring but because the facts presented were contrary to their established believes. At the end of the day it does not really matter how protective and defensive those editors get by the facts. My statements are based on general historical knowledge that are widely used in history books throughout the western world. It is widely recognized that the term "Albania" or country was never used before the 19th century, and Albania was recognized as a country as a result of the vacuum left from the Ottomans and the fights between the Austro-Hungarian and Serb empires. That is widely considered to be a fact if history is studied. Why is that considered edit-warring when it is widely accepted as a historical fact? Those editors are the one who engage in edit-warring not me because they do not want to accept widely accepted historical facts. In addition, it is widely accepted that these editors lay claims in halve of Montenegro, halve of Serbia, halve of Macedonia and halve of Greece based on imaginary theories that are taught in their educational system as historical facts. Why is stating facts that are widely recognized in the western world as facts is edit-warring? RevivedCicero (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: Making absurd accusations against the blocking administrator, instead of addressing the reason for the block, is not going to get you unblocked. As for your remark about editors' proficiency in English, it really doesn't deserve an answer. You ask to be shown your edit-warring. I can't see why, as you know what you did, but since you ask, here you are: . JBW (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Would you be able to show war-editing? The reason why the account is blocked is not because of edit-warring but because the facts presented were contrary to their established believes. At the end of the day it does not really matter how protective and defensive those editors get by the facts. My statements are based on general historical knowledge that are widely used in history books throughout the western world. It is widely recognized that the term "Albania" or country was never used before the 19th century, and Albania was recognized as a country as a result of the vacuum left from the Ottomans and the fights between the Austro-Hungarian and Serb empires. That is widely considered to be a fact if history is studied. Why is that considered edit-warring when it is widely accepted as a historical fact? Those editors are the one who engage in edit-warring not me because they do not want to accept widely accepted historical facts. In addition, it is widely accepted that these editors lay claims in halve of Montenegro, halve of Serbia, halve of Macedonia and halve of Greece based on imaginary theories that are taught in their educational system as historical facts. Why is stating facts that are widely recognized in the western world as facts is edit-warring? September 2024 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice. There was exactly one user who has requested a block of your account, so "some of" them is Soetermans. After receiving explanations from three administrators about the issues and why your content-based explanations have no effect on an edit-warring-related/conduct block, you personalized the issue, implying their language knowledge is so bad that an incorrect edit warring accusation might be caused by it, and continued arguing about the content, so a block that doesn't affect this page here became insufficient to prevent disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC) is open. Looks good to me, but I'm easy. Hit the key points and English is better. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
|
Welcome back
edit
Hello RevivedCicero,
Welcome back to Wikipedia. You've been around a while, but you hadn't receive a welcome message yet, and you might still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you have questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly.
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 18
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malësia, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian was added.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
CS1 error on Kuči (tribe)
edit
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kuči (tribe), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- fixed thanks RevivedCicero (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Misusing the minor edits box
edit
Hi RevivedCicero! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Hotwiki:, I appreciate your message. I will take that into account moving forward. Thank you! RevivedCicero (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Hotwiki:, would you be able to tell me which page are you referring to? Are you talking about Posthumus Zone or Dembel (woreda)? I can go and restore the previous edit. Thank you! RevivedCicero (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Czech Republic at the 2000 Summer Olympics, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Olympic and Czech were added.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
edit
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Please note that WP:CT/BLP (living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles) is also a contentious topic. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Newslinger:, I have been working for quite a while on this article, and I have invited the interested parties in the discussion talk page, but no one seems anymore interested in the discussion but rather in reverting without engaging in it first. I have used sources that do not mention the tribe Kuči itself, but the party that is being implied to have been originated from. The sources are reliable. If there is disagreement on that, it must be addressed in the talk page. What is the purpose of this warning? Thanks! RevivedCicero (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi RevivedCicero, my comment is an informational notice that editors who participate in contentious topics regularly receive. It is not a warning. As the notice states in the second sentence, "This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing." — Newslinger talk 06:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Please retract your statements
editHello @RevivedCicero, you commented on the Talk page of the Le Bas article that I used ChatGPT Special:Diff/1357085670 to write this. If you cared to review the article history, you would know that I wrote this article over the course of several days, going through multiple revisions. This is entirely my own work, and frankly I'm insulted by your statement. It took a lot of hard work to research this article, including locating and translating sources. Please retract your comments and follow WP:CIV, otherwise I will bring this up to WP:AN. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hey @Chao Garden:, I didnt say it is written by ChatGPT, I said it seems likely given that ‘her’ and ‘she’ is used so many times which is repetitive. Would you be able to writte it in a manner that ‘she’ and ‘her’ is used used less frequently. Thank you for your hard work. RevivedCicero (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- @RevivedCicero You said
"ChatGPT detected"
, said it was"most likely it is written by ChatGPT"
, and then ended with"Good job ChatGPT"
. As you will not retract your aspersions and follow WP:CIV, I will post on WP:AN and ask for advice. There is nothing wrong with the pronouns used in that sentence. That being said, anyone is welcome to rephrase the sentence, though they should avoid introducing grammatically issues & ambiguous or confusing info (as you did) or use superlatives (as you did) that are not supported by sourcing. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)- Hey @Chao Garden:, I have retracted my comment. Is there anything else I can do for you? Thank you so much for your amazing work. RevivedCicero (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comment @RevivedCicero, but you wrote "retrieve" not "retract" and did not apologize. Moreover, your comment does not get to the root of the issue: namely, you went against WP:CIV and cast aspersions unnecessarily. I'm not demanding an apology, but I certainly would appreciate one, given the way you sullied the Talk page of an article I *just* got to GA, after a lot of hard work, and
then also somehow managed to add your accusations into the green GA block itself (which is doubly frustrating).(Note: striking this, as it appears to have been a rendering artifact from a new comment.) - I also wanted to note, in the future, you can review the WP:AISIGNS for how to properly detect AI writing. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comment @RevivedCicero, but you wrote "retrieve" not "retract" and did not apologize. Moreover, your comment does not get to the root of the issue: namely, you went against WP:CIV and cast aspersions unnecessarily. I'm not demanding an apology, but I certainly would appreciate one, given the way you sullied the Talk page of an article I *just* got to GA, after a lot of hard work, and
- Hey @Chao Garden:, I have retracted my comment. Is there anything else I can do for you? Thank you so much for your amazing work. RevivedCicero (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- @RevivedCicero You said