User talk:Herakliu

Herakliu, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Herakliu!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Anything to declare?.--Zoupan 16:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC) You are making serious accusation zoupan, unfortunately for you I don't think you will find anything relevant against me. To be 100% sincere this is my second account in wikipedia because I had a very old account that I barely used and of wich, consequently, I don't remember neither username and either password (thing that I seriously doubt constitute any kind of infraction). You can check if you want, I don't have anything to hide.[reply]

I ask you to not write anymore in my talkpage unless you have anything useful or serious to contribute. Herakliu (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that WP is ridden with disruptive users and their socks. I know 87.15.233.94 (talk · contribs · count) is yours, and Veton91 (talk · contribs · count) might be you. You sneaked a terribly false and refuted note back, added a false identifier to an intro, etc. Please refrain from these kind of edits, and discuss the matter instead of edit-warring.--Zoupan 04:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the anonymous Ip was mine before I started using permanently this account. I don't have minimally idea who this veton is, and I fail to grasp why I should create so many sockpuppets. But as I said I don't have anything to hide, you can check everything you want about me. Herakliu (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--Zoupan 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Your recent editing history at Origin of the Albanians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr. K. 08:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for edit warring at Origin of the Albanians

You've been warned per the result of an edit warring complaint about Origin of the Albanians. The next time you revert at this article you may be blocked, unless you first obtain consensus on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian topics are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"scholarly accepted source" and "tiny chronological mistake"

Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Common sense. You claiming it to be "scholarly accepted" and "tiny chronological mistake" doesn't cut it. The "Dukagjini of Albania" did not invade the "Kingdom of Bosnia" in the 7th century. I don't want to hear your unbacked personal views. I just saw your petition to continue (?), which would make it disruptive editing. Deal with it. Please, if you want to improve Albanian-related articles, do so in the manner put forth. --Zoupan 19:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoupan:You are talking to me citing "common sense", a thing you clearly lack judging from the numerous messages you wrote to me. You made 5 points, 4 of wich are completely irrelevant to the veridicity of the source or just made up by you in order to suit your agenda ( (1)14th century, (2)Gin Tanusio are the irrelevant ones; the false ones are (3)made up histories and legends, (4)not used in :scholarship, the document doesn't contain any strange history of magics or mythology, it's just a historical account with a chronology coherent in space, time, situation, and unfortunately for you, yes, it is used in scholarship). The only semiserious thing you wrote in so many messages is that there is a mistake in chronology (precisely the part more removed in time, the oldest), a thing that if taken seriously as an argument would consequently invalidate the majority of historical sources we use today in order to write history. But that's exactly the work of a historian, to tell apart mystifications from truth, in order to give an accurate account of facts. But nobody sane of his mind would say that the Bible is all a farse just because it contains obvious mythology in it (same discourse could be done with an insane amount of old documents and sources we use today).

Now, unfortunately Wikipedia put me in condition to reason with people possessing an IQ many STs below mines, or that simply have a pathetic and obvious antiAlbanian agenda, therefore you are effectively blocking this page of wikipedia being enriched with a legit source used in scholarship.

Don't even think for a second I will back down from this. Herakliu (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

I have suggested some reading matter for you. Here is some more; please read WP:NPA. You have twice today accused another editor of lying. That amounts to personal attacks that could have you blocked. To avoid that you might redact your accusations (see WP:REDACT) and preferably apologize. --T*U (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

albanian hypothesis

which consensus? and how does this consensus overwrite wikipedia guideline? we are talking about a self published work by an high school teacher PedroPistolas (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PedroPistolas: the source cited in Paleo-Sardinian language is not selfpublished, it's a scholar review by Emanuele Banfi. Anyway it's already been explained In the TP. All the best Herakliu (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]