User talk:Khirurg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities founded by Alexander the Great/archive1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Your revert on Gjirokastër is plain desperate. Do not delete other sources and other sourced information in fear of trying to remove the greek minority. Its already mentioned the greek minority recognised by any albanian and we do not care to turn wikipedia into a propagandistic platform. The anti communist movement is a whole albanian movement politically there was nothing ethnic going on. They were democrats no matter the ethnicity. Otherwise i would be obligated to report this revert. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contribs, almost every single one of your edits is intended to minimise or erase any mention of the Greek minority in Albania. Don't bother denying it, it's plain as day. You literally do nothing else around here. So, go ahead and "report" whatever you want, just be aware that it likely won't end well for you. Khirurg (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I don't disagree regarding the Hoxha statue, but the rest of your edits on that article were provocative and problematic. Khirurg (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont disagree regarding the issue on Hoxha statue what is the problem then. You even are reverting the name misspell. And deleting other sources that i am puting. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the greek minority its already mentioned. Nobody is deleting the minority. But the statue demolition had no ethnic purposes. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also your source doesnt mention that it was the ethnic greeks the ones who destroyed the statue. It was the last statue to be destroyed in Albania RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you removed the pic of the polyphonic group, and the similarities to Mount Pelion houses. Did you forget that? You are just going around removing anything that you don't like it, and that's not ok. Khirurg (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt removed any pic on the Gjirokaster County. Derviçan is not part of the Town of Gjirokastër. You dont see me removing anything that i am not aware on Derviçan article. And also i dont see the stone roofs of Gjirokaster mentioned in Pelion article too. There is reciprocity. To me it looks like you are pushing to add as many Greek information as you could. Which for me still its not a problem if those are relevant. But specifically on these cases they are not relevant. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dervican is literally next door to Gjirokaster, there is absolutely no reason to remove it, unless of course it is to hide the Greek minority in the region. Khirurg (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing him of hiding greek minority yet u seem to be supporitng that obsured claim . In 19th century we have many writers and even ethno graphic maps saying no greek in albania but albanians in south epirus or Çameria before they were killed in çam genocide . So when did the greeks magically appear ? Even in the 20th century u have maps still showing Gjirokaster in Albanian ethnicity like this :https://picryl.com/search?q=EthnicAlbania1911%20-%20Public%20domain%20geographic%20map. If you would be familiar with the issue you would even know a lot of albanians declare greek just for a passport in this modern day . Truth t (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next door or not its not part of Gjirokastër. Just like Lazarat which is in the middle of Gjirokaster and Derviçan can not be in the article about Derviçan. Thats what i call reciprocity. Unless you are being paranoid not everything i do is linked with ethnic greek stuff. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't agree (neither would i for that matter) putting ethnic albanian gjirokastrit stuff into derviçan article. So lets set a common ground of reciprocity and contribute together. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have we reached a consensus? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lmaooo,gjirokaster's population is majority albanian ive never seen a greek in there, poor greek guy who keeps editing wikipedia articles out of desperation that his country has fake history

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euboea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monilia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits are not improvements, the wording "among the oldest continuously inhabited cities" is accurate, while "continuously inhabited since antiquity" is incorrect, those sites have been inhabited long before antiquity. – Βατο (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not only falsifying the source (it makes no such claim, not even closely), you are adding WP:PUFFERY )to the lede of high visibility articles), and you also have zero evidence that these cities that they have been inhabited "long before antiquity", let alone "continuously". 2,200 years of history is nothing by world standards. There are at least 50-60 cities in Europe with longer histories, and that's not even including the dozens of older cities in Asia and Africa. This is POV-pushing of the crudest kind, and there is no way it can stand. Your edits and behavior are damaging the credibility of the encyclopedia. My edits are a reasonable compromise and in accordance with the source. If you continue this behavior, I will seek assistance from the community, and your credibility will suffer. Khirurg (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about 'sites', not 'cities', and 'recorded history' not 'history'. Nevertheless, your edits are inaccurate original research, I changed the content in agreement with the source. – Βατο (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the articles, you claimed "cities", not sites, which is neither sourced nor accurate. My edits were perfectly in line with the source. Anyway, your latest edits are satisfactory and there is no need for community involvement. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a third opinion with the hope of reaching a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalHeritageAlb (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am writing to inform you that a discussion regarding the content of the article Talk:Vurg#Lefter Talo has been taking place on its talk page, and it has reached a point where it seems necessary to bring it to the attention of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I wanted to give you a heads up since you have been involved in the discussion, [[1]] Thank You! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mali i Gjerë, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (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) 19:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mali i Gjerë, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (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) 23:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philip II of Macedon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Chaeronea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no speak. I stumbled across these sources at Brill, thought you might be interested.[2]-[3]-[4] Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my friend, these will be useful. Always nice to hear from you. Take care. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find this slightly disturbing in terms of WP:BATTLEFIELD. Kleuske (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am constantly on the receiving end of all sorts of taunts by a group of editors, and am currently collecting it for a possible future case. The taunting is non-stop, in almost every interaction, and I am at my wits' end. Please advise. Khirurg (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you keep reverting my edits even though i gave sources. You are a biased nationalistic greej Truth t (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i do not care about your opinions, i am making a better a wikipedia contributing and spreading the real history, and no im not a nationalist, and i am citing sources also

Title SamuelLion1877 (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markos Botsaris has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jtrrs0 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Illegally (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hierapolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiochus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope you're doing well. Could you please explain why you reverted my last edit on Constantine the Great? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arberiunumk (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you falsified "Greek" to "Anatolian" despite this being contradicted by the sources, and re-added citations to the lede despite it being explained to you that that's not appropriate. Khirurg (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just cited some sources of his Illyrian profile, and corrected that his mother was Anatolian and not Greek, anything wrong with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arberiunumk (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't "correct" anything, there are five sources in the article that state she was Greek, you just falsified it because you didn't like it. Don't do it again. Khirurg (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you can see I am still dissatisfied with the situation at the template. You expressed room for compromise at that RfC. Does this still stand? Super Ψ Dro 06:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you refresh my memory? I do not quite recall which RfC you are referring to. Khirurg (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one [5]. I do not blame you as it was rather a shitshow.

My issue is that I find the inclusion of Aromanians and Slavic-speakers along with Macedonians and Phanariots under a group called "Northern Greeks" as original research and not accurately reflective of their distinctiveness. Even if seen from the view of being Greeks today, the histories and languages of these groups make them more different from both Macedonians or Athenians than Macedonians and Athenians are different from each other. Same with the Arvanites and Souliotes. Do you catch me here? I think these groups should have their own group in the template, not named an OR name such as "Northern Greeks" which might appear to readers to be some already well-defined subgroup, and not together with regular Greek subgroups. I chose "Groups of non-Greek origin" as it feels pretty neutral to me but I'd be okay with some other title. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 23:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and agree that "Northern Greeks" is not a good choice, but I equally dislike "non-Greek origin" because of its exclusive focus on "origin". Perhaps "Assimilated Greeks"? But then Cypriots, Sarakatsani, and Griko would have to be in another category. Khirurg (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sidebar is supposed to be simply a collection of articles. The previous structure with the note seemed a little weird. Personally, I wouldn't really mind separating the groups, perhaps under a neutral title like "Other groups". Piccco (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would work as well. Khirurg (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cypriots, Sarakatsani and Griko could be reorganized in the way I did here [6], I think it wasn't a bad reorganization. Regarding "Assimilated Greeks" it is acceptable to me, but how about "Assimilated groups"? Is that a deal-breaker for you? It could be more neutral considering some 14%-20% Slavophones identify as ethnic Macedonians (as said in their own article) and how a small number of Greek Aromanians is reported to maintain a non-Greek identity (I don't have a figure here, it's probably lower than the Slavophones). Also for the sake of the minority of Aromanians from outside Greece who generally do not identify with the country. "Other groups" would be the worst option of the three as it wouldn't explain why are these groups singled out in this part of the template. Super Ψ Dro 16:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the template is about Greeks, so I would prefer "Assimilated Greeks". Any Slavic speakers or Aromanians that do not identify as Greeks are not Greek by definition, and beyond the scope of the template. Khirurg (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are, however, within the scopes of the linked articles. Piccco, may you offer a third view? Super Ψ Dro 18:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, apologies for coming back here over this several days later. I have went for "Assimilated Greeks" in the end. Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate that we've managed to find a middle ground. Have a good editing. Super Ψ Dro 21:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thank you for being collaborative. Khirurg (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a message on my Talk page accusing me of edit warring. I believe I was simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia and didn't intend to cause any issues. I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumbarschen (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EDITWAR, WP:REVERT, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE for starters. If you continue to restore your edits, it is very likely admins will block you from editing. Khirurg (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but i'm not doing any Edit war, i'm simply here to edit and contribute i have nothing against noone. I'm just simply trying to cite sources and contribute on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumbarschen (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kastoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgios Theocharis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Khirurg,

Thank you for creating Ethnographic cartography of the Balkans in the late 19th and early 20th century.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please see WP:NOTGALLERY. An article can’t just be a collection of images with a brief introduction. There needs to be something substantial to say about the topic.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll flesh it out more. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]