User talk:Opala300

Hello, Opala300! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate my revert on Romani people, it appears that the sources you introduced in your edit are non-academic and unreliable. For example you cited a wiki (unreliable per WP:UGC), IslamQA (unreliable per WP:RSP), a site of human rights activists and a source by a supposed historian. Only Stern's source might be reliable. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hiya Opala300.

I've noticed you have recently added the suggestion that Bengali and Bengalis have a special place in the evolution of the Romani language and people to various articles, based on two sources. The first source, Shakur Harish is not reliable for our purposes. Shakur is not a linguist, and his paper does not deal with linguistic evidence, and his argument is very weak. The journal in which he writes is not a specialist publication.

As for Hübschmannová, she is an expert on Romani linguistics, but her throwaway remark that Bengali grammar is "most similar" to Romani grammar is not WP:DUE for inclusion as it is not clear she implies any philogenic connection (perhaps merely relating superficial coincidental similarity) and the claim is not repeated in mainstream modern authoritative studies such as The Palgrave Handbook of Romani Language and Linguistics. This book, co-edited by Yaron Matras gives the mainstream position that the Romani were a Central Aryan-speaking group who spent around 1000 years in Northwest Aryan-speaking regions.

Please don't add this claim again, or to any more articles, without discussion. I would suggest that any discussion of this claim should be held at the main talkpage for Romani language, as it affects dozens of articles and this will keep discussion in the place where most users will see it.

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, here are a good photos who shows a muslim romani womans in their festival dress the harem pants, also called shalwar maybe you can add this picture to the other pictures in the page?

https://schwarzemilch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/207-209.jpg

https://de.pinterest.com/pin/1-former-ottoman-balkans-traditional-clothing--302867143673457400/ Romontosokollo (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Opala300, you and I seem to be butting heads somewhat on the History of the Romani people page, which I'm sure can be avoided with dialogue on the relevant talk page. I encourage you to resort to this option if you find yourself dissatisfied with edits I make, rather than simply reverting back to your preferred version of the page. Additionally, I'd like to draw your attention to edit summaries, which are not optional on WP. This minor explanatory addition is crucial for helping other editors understand not only the motive but also the general overview of your edits, so please take a moment to outline your work each time before you hit publish. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Opala300, you restored a 12% estimate for the amount of Roma people in Romania , citing a source. This source cites the Council of Europe as its source, which already gives an already inflated 8.32% figure. The CoE based this estimate on the average of its estimates. 12% is actually pretty insane, it attempts to argue that the number of Roma is almost four times higher than what latest census (or the 2011 one) reported.

Furthermore, this article notes the problem with this exaggerated 12% figure : The upper estimate of 2.5 million Roma in Romania [...] came from a Securitate report [...] and represents the end product of two decades of official anxiety about supposed Roma numbers that coincided with both the austerity policies and nationalist paranoia of the Ceaușescu regime.; As we have seen above, the higher guesstimate of 2.5 million Roma was of unreliable provenance and the last four national censuses (based on self-identity) have consistently produced far lower figures.; the CoE's guesstimate of 2.5 million (in 1991). Regarding the last quote, it is important to note that, since 1990, Romania's population has decreased by over 4 million people, almost a sixth of the entire population, with many of these people being in fact Roma, who tended to be at a more disadvantageous position.

Thus, not only is the 12% figure extremely high (in fact I think it would fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, requiring very heavy sourcing), but it is also of questionable provenence as supported by an academic source, and also outdated. I believe it is best not to make use of this problematic figure. Thanks, Super Ψ Dro 22:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Opala300,

What language do the Lowland Gypsies speak? You’ve listed it as Scots-Romani, but that cannot be the case. All the academic and earlier source material — ever since the language was first recorded — shows that Scots-Romani was spoken by the Nawkens and those of Kirk Yetholm. This is why I know your edits are incorrect: you’ve changed the terminology, but left the language and especially ethnographic material concerning Aberdeen the same, which clearly shows a misunderstanding of the source material.

A quick overview of your endonym editing seen on the Scottish Cant page:

The main source on Scottish Cant in Travellers and their Language comes from the Stewart family, the same family recorded by Hamish Henderson. They used the endonyms Naken (Perthshire) and Nyachim (Aberdeen), exactly as "the Travellers and their Language" recorded. The Stewarts also use the term “Travellers” as their endonym. Again, Travellers and their Language — which I have in front of me — is quite clear on this matter.

Yet your edits cite it incorrectly:

You changed wording to “a variety of the Romani language.” That phrase does not appear in the book. The authors use “Travellers’ Cant” or simply “Cant.”

You wrote “spoken by Lowland Romani (Lowland Gypsies).” Again, this is not in the source. The authors use “Scottish Travellers” and note the Nyachim and Naken terms. They also describe Scottish Travellers (in this context, Nawkens) as an aboriginal people who later mixed with Gypsies in the sixteenth century.

Your edits have now created a contradiction: Lowland Gypsies are shown speaking Scots-Romani, while Scottish Travellers (Nawkens) appear with no defined language. That is not what the literature says. If you believe Lowland Gypsies are a separate people, please provide an ethnographic or academic source showing what language they speak.

Another serious issue is your use of the Romani label. You seem to be assuming that whenever a language or group is described with a “Romani” term, it must necessarily belong to the wider Romani linguistic or ethnic family. That is not how the sources treat Scottish material. Terms like “Scoto-Romani” or “Tinklers’ Cant” arose historically because of vocabulary overlap with Romani, but the language was still spoken by Nawkens, not by a distinct Romani population in Scotland. By inserting “Romani” terminology where the sources do not, you are effectively rewriting the ethnography rather than representing it.

You also removed well-attested information about Romanichals being called Travellers, even though I already provided the source material. This endonym change has been noted for decades, and there are newspaper articles documenting it as far back as the 1940s. I have no idea why this was taken out. Likewise, you removed mention of the term "Yetholm Gypsies", implying that “Border Gypsies” and “Kirk Yetholm Tinklers” are separate peoples when they are not. The source material — especially in Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts (MacRitchie, 1894) — makes this perfectly clear where both are seen in the same Chapter. Your attempt at clearing up Romani VS Traveller into neat categories is foolish and is far more complicated in the context of British GRT (Gypsy, Roma, Traveller) history.

It’s also clear that you are not as well-informed on Romani people in Britain as you believe. Much of what you are inserting echoes common myths that have been circulating online and on social media, rather than what appears in academic or ethnographic sources. On top of this, your approach comes across as heavily “Roma-centric” — interpreting the term "Traveller" through the perspective of continental Roma identity, rather than considering the actual historical development and terminology used by British Romani/Traveller groups themselves. This is not how reliable scholarship treats the subject, and importing that bias into the articles distorts the history.

In conclusion, I kindly ask that you refrain from editing the Gypsy/Traveller pages unless you can provide reliable, cited academic material or other source material to support those changes. Repeatedly overriding sourced content without evidence or discussion is disruptive and goes against Wikipedia guidelines.

You also removed information for which I already had citations lined up. I hadn’t yet inserted them into the article through editing.

Finally, I need to stress that Wikipedia relies on published, reliable sources — not personal interpretations. This means that individual editors (myself included) are not qualified to “redefine” terminology or reassign languages without academic support. If your edits cannot be backed up by credible ethnographic or linguistic scholarship, they should not be added. We all want the articles to be accurate, but accuracy must come from what the sources actually say and unfortunately, you do not echo these. RomaniResearcher (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You've been reported to the Wikipedia Administrator's Noticeboard. I have linked you. Please argue your case. I had to do this considering you haven't answered any questions sufficiently and will not engage in a deeper discussion of source material.

Thanks,

RomaniResearcher RomaniResearcher (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Opala300. Could you please come to the ANI thread? Its located at WP:ANI#Problem With User Changing Cited Information on Romani (Gypsy) and Traveller Pages, in case you can't find it. It would be useful to obtain your input on the matter. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romani diaspora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traveler. 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) 19:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Opala300! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Romanichal. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Romanichal, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Revirvlkodlaku,

The image I had uploaded was a different image to the previous.

Though it might have appeared that I was trying to reinstate the file prefix in the gallery, I have realised this was automatically added when editing the gallery from visual edit. Opala300 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Opala300, thanks for explaining; I didn't realize the file prefix was added automatically. As for the image, I'm not concerned about what it is but rather the fact that one additional image throws off the gallery layout, so my suggestion is to either maintain six images, or alternatively, to add another few to balance out two rows. What do you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry to learn that "the vast majority of Romani people today are not nomadic/itinerant." I had changed the statement from past to present tense because I suspected someone was trying to falsely characterize traditional Romani practice as extinct, and its practitioners as therefore less relevant. Since you clearly know whereof you speak, I must accept your correction; but I wish the truth were otherwise. Ornithikos (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)