User talk:Ktrimi991

Your feedback is requested at

Hello! Just wanted to inform you that this is already habitual. Editor deletes everything on h talk page so it's cumbersome to keep track. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Time has told already, methinks. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Why are you spreading false information about Macura being an Albanian tribe, when they are not? Cheking inf (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read

Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hello. Can you explain me the problem with Kastriot Myftaraj's source? Super Ψ Dro 17:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also. You keep confusing ethnicity with identity. They are not the same. Aurel Plasari, and others, are ethnic Aromanians. That does not mean that they identify only as Aromanians or that they reject an Albanian identity. If your notion of ethnicity and identity being synonymous were true, we would 1) have an article about the Aromanians treating only a few thousand individuals not identifying as Greek, Romanian or other 2) we would not be able to refer to individuals' parents as ethnic Aromanian because we would then assume their identity (Rita Marko's case). Your interpretation is not the one used in Wikipedia. It is clearly stated at Aromanians that they're an ethnic group despite their conflicting, various identities being well-known, which is also mentioned in the article. Super Ψ Dro 17:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Kastriot Myftaraj. FYI, he is using "vlleh" as an ethnic slur.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2001 insurgency in Macedonia, 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

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

I know that it [1] is basically just what Alexikoua said, however, I think it would be good to wait for Alexikouas response at first. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having 3 name translations in the lede clutters the very first sentence of the article. However, if you and Alexikoua reach a different agreement, I will not oppose it. Hence I did stop at that point and did not implement it on other articles. Cheers,

Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I somehow have the feeling that there isn't going to be a response soon. I also haven't heard anything from Khirurg lately. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

The source explains everything. I can add the explanation of the special case of Byzantine Greek, which might be forgotten today. I didn’t want to balloon the introduction. Homei (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"Again, the intellectuals who made up the commission assigned to impose and supervise the modification of the toponyms feared that excessive zeal might lead to the disappearance of toponyms coming down from the medieval period. That happened often as a result of over-hasty archaization. For example, the renowned Byzantine city-fortress of Monemvasia was temporarily renamed Epidaurus Limira, that is to say it was given an unknown name for which there was no authority. It was unclear whether only names that recalled the foreign conquerors ought to be changed, or if the modification of the name ought to consist of a general restoration of names of the Classical Era. This dilemma was explained by the fact that, at the time of the creation of the Greek state, the only "past" which was thought worthy of commemoration was the Classical Period. Ancient sites and monuments were subjected to the same procedure of erasing the medieval past. The image of the Parthenon we see now was created in the nineteenth century after the elimination from the Acropolis of all the buildings not belonging to the Classical Period of the fifth century BC. It was only after the Balkan wars in 1912-1913 that the Byzantine and medieval periods began to be thought capable of providing references in "space-time" for modern Greek ideology. However, even after the national ideology was enriched in these ways, Classical antiquity never lost its primacy."

Above from page 235 of Hellenisms: culture, idenitity, and ethnicity from antiquity to modernity

"One of the most revealing cases regards the change of the name of Ghioumoultzina/ GiimUlcine to Komotini: The Ottoman version of the name was very close to the old original Byzantine name Koumoutzina, but the more hellenised Komotini has prevailed. Report by the Committee on the place names in Greece to the Ministry of the Interior, 2.11.1921, AP 417, State General Archives ofAthens, Collection Stamoulis, K85.c, 8, doc 085. On the man­ agement of city space as a field of antagonism between Greeks and Turks and the symbolic power of the usage of buildings and plots once owned by the Muslim or Jewish communi­ ties by the majority, see V. Koutsoukos, 2004."

Above from page 50 of Old and New Islam in Greece: From Historical Minorities to Immigrant Newcomers

I don’t know the wiki syntax to add these quotes. Could you do that? The essence is that the Byzantine was only added later to the Greek canon and originally only classical names were accepted. Many towns and cities were changed from their Byzantine to their classical names. Homei (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Done, check it out. :) Homei (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, cheers.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Mirmbrama Ktrimi, we've discussed at Anthousa, Preveza. If you have a different opinion than I do, you, of course, can intervene. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Lukova should be discussed on its own talk page. Any kind of consensus reached on Anthousa can't decide on Lukova. Btw, are the other side of the "deal" willing to add the Albanian name to Igoumenitsa and Parga, where there are still some Albanian speakers? Or are you "exchanging" important settlements like the entire Lukova municipality with dead and lost villages like Anthousa? Just asking because neither I care about those articles nor are such "deals" in line with

Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, good point. If the Albanian name doesn't go to Parga and Igoumenitsa, we'll remove Lukova and Piqeras. Is that alright? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

You (possibly) disrupted the statement "The fortifications, as they have been preserved to date, are mostly of Venetian" (with added source) at the Rozafa Castle page.

The new statement is now "Originally an

3 other editors have made the same edit. Only you have opposed it.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not ask how many editors contributed with disruptive editing. I'm asking you to back your own statements, which you and the others editors have avoided to do.

talk) 23:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Another, 4th, editor reverted you. You should consider putting an end to edit warring.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Mirmbrama Ktrimi, I somehow am concerned about the Latin etymology of Pristina that it is delivered from Primus Justinianus. The section of the book was written by Rexhep Doci not E. E. As you may know, he previously attempted to explain Budua and Malisheva through Albanian etymologies. I don't have any problem including it in the article and it, in fact, does sound possible, however, I'd like to hear your opinion. (In addition to that: Ulpiana (which is a a stone's throw away from Pristina) was called Justiniana Secunda and not Prima. In fact, a city near Nish was called Justiniana Prima, but the proximity does not convince me.) Again, I have no problem including it since it does sound possible in some degree. Thanks -AlexBachmann (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I think that Pristina coming from Primus Justinianus is quite dubious, though it staying there is not a big deal since the other etymologies do not look anything better. If you want to remove it though, I am OK with that option too. Up to you.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, I'll let it stay since there's (evidently) no consensus on the name. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:03, 18 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

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Since the shift from "discretionary sanctions" to "contentious topics", editors alerted under the old system still need a new notice. I totally get how this seems like a duplicate.

As regards the edit warring: you can be edit warring even with just one revert. You removed the phrase "with Greeks being the vast majority", which was at the center of an ongoing edit war that only stopped due to page protection. I'm glad you're discussing at the talk page, and I hope continuing to do so will lead to consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I should have said "I hope continued discussion there will lead to consensus", as the burden definitely doesn't fall on you. Happy editing elsewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy editing to you too.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hey @
  Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I do plan on sanctioning editors who breach the restriction. We'll see what happens if changes made since the restriction are reverted. I do encourage you (and any others reading) to give editors who breach a chance to self-revert. Restrictions like this can be confusing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There is nothing "weird" about my edit summary, that account is suspect, something noted by Firefangledfeathers themselves. My first revert was before the restriction was in place. Once the restriction was put in place, the new account breached it by reverting. My second edit simply restored the status quo at the time that the restriction was put in place.

  Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  removal of sourced information by new account with only 1 contrib Such an edit summary is weird, because you are not supposed to revert another editor just because they are a newbie (

  Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The restriction does not apply retroactively. A restriction can only be breached once it is put in place. You also interestingly forgot to mention that the material had been in the article for well over a month, until

  Khirurg (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Your comment above is laced with bad faith assumptions Last time you accused someone of something, you got an AE-logged warning. I frankly advise you to focus on sorting out the content dispute through discussion on the talk page and stop edit warring.

  Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  it gives the impression that you are trying to game the system, Is that the reason you are not seeking dispute resolution, are accusations of bad faith. Perhaps it is time you were given an AE logged warning. Anyway, I have been continuously been posting on the talkpage and will continue to do so until a consensus is reached.

  Khirurg (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I responded at the article talk page. Please don't bring the conduct accusations above over there, but I'd be glad to have your thoughts on the content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Kindly take a look at the sources that were recently added regarding Muhammad Ali Pasha heritage. Do those ones appear to be more reliable and academically accurate? This seems to be 'two new accounts' trying to change the version that was approved after several discussions and impose a different narrative that he wasn't even Albanian, unlike the popular concept. So should both ethnicities be added given that there are several sources mentioning the two?

Fragrant Peony (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not want to edit war and keep reverting them more than once, but thanks to other users who also acknowledged the issue, the page got restored to its last-stable version now. Moreover, too many articles and journals fail to distinguish between Ottoman and Turkish. Often, Muslim Albanians/Georgians/Greeks etc of that era are mistaken for Turkish, which is why the other sources of his Albanian heritage appeared more credible since they were specific and seemed to know the difference. Thankfully the page was finally protected. However, after revising the intro, I'm not even sure if writing his name in Modern Turkish Alphabet is historically accurate as that alphabet is not related to the Ottoman Empire and was only introduced later in 1928, so I'm not sure what Muhammad Ali has to do with it since only the Ottoman Turkish alphabet was used in those days. Fragrant Peony (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hey, Krtimi991, you posted:

@Valereee: a block is a punishment when:

1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them
2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased

TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Still not a punishment. It's certainly a consequence of having refused to correct their behavior, and it may feel like a punishment to that editor, but it is absolutely never intended to punish, per very clear policy. It's intended to prevent ongoing behavior issues and -- in, for instance, the case of increasing duration of edit-warring blocks -- to decrease the burdens on admins responding to those issues.

As I said, an admin could go to TIG's user talk and indef them for the personal attacks. Still not a punishment, and the fact no one has done so yet isn't evidence anyone is turning a blind eye. I think it's likely evidence admins are waiting to see what happens at the ANI and what TIG's response/course correction looks like. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @

Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

  MrEditorGREECE MrEditorGREECE (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

The

Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

The potential JohnGotten Brazil IPs you brought up before on my page are active again with nationalist aimed pov edits. Through October, September and August in this range here. Is there a case file already open on this to add to the list? They appear to be mass editing. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @

Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at