User talk:Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar

Welcome!

Hello, Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Scottyoak2 (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username

While I haven't had the time to read your whole post on Origin of Albanians based on that and your sandbox it seems you have some sources that could constructively be added, so long as WP:NPOV policies are observed. But I thought I'd leave a quick word of advice-- nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep using that as your username. People will think of you as a crazy nationalist. I'm not going to speculate on why that is your name and out of good faith I'll assume you intend to edit in line with wiki policies, which you have not yet violated as far as I know. If you want to be taken seriously, I recommend changing it. Follow the link if you wish to do so. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, this account has hallmarks that fit with (WP:SPA).Resnjari (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari -- With each passing day, I agree more strongly with that statement. --Calthinus (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a returning editor or a current one ?

Hi Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar

Are you are returning editor or a editor who has another account but has decided to now have an additional account? I ask to make sure that similarities with at least another account are purely coincidental due to style of sophistication, writing, temperament and the way one has gone about focus on one topic which comes off experienced (also about WP:SPA). I find the use of your sources fascinating, your skills in reading serbo-croatian are remarkable, for someone whose user name is "Alexander the Great is Albanian". By the way in Albanian he is known as Leka and we don't capitalise words like është, madh, or shqiptar within a sentence unless its the first word at the beginning, a personal name, a country, geographical etc. I would have expected that someone with that kind of name would use Albanian sources (and they would dominate), at the very least. Your uses of sources, mainly serbo-croatian language ones (most from prior the 1970s), many Serbian, come from problematic scholarship (i.e see Serbian historiography). The origin of the Albanians article is currently written with much up to date information from recent scholarship that is diverse, and not emanating from one pool of sources from a particular former country like Yugoslavia and a time period from where that content is now redundant and written with political and nationalist overtones. Recent scholarship like the one from Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov (2017) [1] meeting wiki requirements are in stark contradiction to much outdated material of what you posted in the talkpage of the article. I look forward to your response. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

	The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit
	I have noticed your edits and appreciated them greatly. Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Albania. Cheers!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	_{this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~}

Hi

Just noticed some of your edits/future proposals. Speaking myself as a Slavic subject (ethnically half-Croat half-Bosniak) but someone who favoured "the old order" so to speak, you may feel "ah, Albanians and Slavs, bad combination". Politics may be one thing but I have no ill feelings towards any nation. I noticed your name and personally I think it is fantastic because I lived for a time in Macedonia in recent years (I have a sporting background) and I know the sensitivity of the "Aleksandar makedonac" issue, and how in particular it is "us true Macedonians versus the revisionist Greeks", yet few know that there is a trail of evidence to suggest Alexander was either completely Illyrian or possibly Illyrian on one side. Either way, he is relevant among Hellenic people - could have been Hellenic or as we said Illyrian - but definitely not Slavic. Then you hear the usual whining, "ama ne sme slaveni" (but we're not Slavs!) but so long as they co-exist between southern Serbs and western Bulgarians then Slavs is all they are in my eyes. Nevertheless, without prejudice I'd like to explore your "origins" theory and have done some very small copyediting here. I didn't want to leave fingerprints at your sandbox as it is not for me to edit (I see you invited another editor but that is by the by). I'll look more into it when there is more time but for now, see how you like the redacted lines and in particular whether they still say what you mean them to say. I'd like to have done more but unfortunately the sources totally shroud the text and it is hard to navigate - sometimes I find myself editing the source because I think it is the proposed text only to find later on that I have worked in the wrong place. My advice for the sandbox is to leave off the sources - store them somewhere else because you only need them for the article if ever the draft is saved proper. Cheers. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions alert

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 Eastern Europe, 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 that 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.

-- Nick (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLM

Sa bukur emri yt! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaof2017 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Hello, Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 21:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a hard block meaning you may only edit Wikipedia again if you successfully appeal it by addressing both the issues with your name and your edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Alexandros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks...
— User:Beeblebrox 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, why not. I can change my name, if it's so terribly controversial, under a condition that the reasons for its change are clearly defined. My current name literally translates into Alexander the Great is Albanian and it does not contain any inappropriate language. Also keep in mind that the editor who pretends that he had given me a """warning""" (advice) also states that I have not violated any Wikipedia policies and that some of my sources could be constructively added to the Origin of the Albanians article.[2]

While I haven't had the time to read your whole post on Origin of Albanians based on that and your sandbox it seems you have some sources that could constructively be added, so long as WP:NPOV policies are observed. But I thought I'd leave a quick word of advice-- nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep using that as your username. People will think of you as a crazy nationalist. I'm not going to speculate on why that is your name and out of good faith I'll assume you intend to edit in line with wiki policies, which you have not yet violated as far as I know. If you want to be taken seriously, I recommend changing it. Follow the link if you wish to do so. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The reasons behind this editors sudden change of an opinion about the validity of my name is his personal agenda to have me hard-blocked, and simply because I disagree with his POV.[3]

..or impersonates another person..
— User:Beeblebrox 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia's username policy under the impersonation section refers to living persons, NOT historic or fiction characters. Thus, if I name myself as Alexander the Great, Clark Kent or Speedy Gonzales, then this certainly does not subsume that I am a Superman, a Mexican speaking mouse or an ancient warlord who lived over 2000 years ago.

Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas. While it is possible to rename your account later (see Changing your username below), a record of your previous username remains permanently.
Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person.
If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided.
If you have been blocked for using your real name, please do not take offense; we are trying to prevent somebody from impersonating you (or impersonating someone you share a name with). You are welcome to use your real name, but in some cases, you will need to prove that you are who you say you are. You can do this by sending an email to info-en@wikimedia.org. Be aware that emails are handled by a volunteer response team and that it may take a while before you receive a reply.

..or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
— User:Beeblebrox 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

My current name does not violate Wikipedia's username policy under the reasons which you mention. The name Alexander the Great is Albanian, at best, suggests, advocates or PROMOTES that the said historic figure is of an Albanian ethnic background, which could be a pretentious claim given that it's also being claimed by Greeks and Macedonians. However, Wikipedia's username policy under the promotional names section essentially speaks of companies, groups, personal information, etc.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior.
— User:Beeblebrox 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have expressed my good faith by my willingness to change my name and act in accordance to the Wikipedia's policies.

If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block.
— User:Beeblebrox 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, apart from contributing tremendous amount of scientific per-review content, I have also been a victim of bad faith persecutions since I am an exemplary wikipedian editor; otherwise. If that was not the case, then I would had not assumed my good faith by strictly conducting according to the standard procedure of the dispute resolution policy.

Follow the normal protocol[edit source]
When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.
To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page.

Focus on content[edit source]
Policy shortcut WP:FOC Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy
Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.

As you can see from the Origin of the Albanians editing history, I did not make any edits on that article's front page. Not a one single edit!!! If my intentions were not motivated in good faith, then I would had not appealed to the other editors in TALK PAGE first but went straight for the front page to vandalise its content. But that's not the case now, is it!?

Please note that this is a hard block meaning you may only edit Wikipedia again if you successfully appeal it by addressing both the issues with your name and your edits.
— User:Beeblebrox 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I request immediate removal of my hard-block since I conducted in full compliance with the Wikipedia's policies and desire to change my name. As for those edits(?) that you are mentioning, you will need to specify them since I am not telepathic neither do I know which of those edits you have in mind. I would also like to draw your attention to the following commentary by Calthinus:

Sadly my hopes were dashed. As a Westerner who tries to edit Balkan topics, I know how fragile the atmosphere can be. AMES is solely here to generate emotional responses from Albanians, who remember that questioning their origins in the Balkans in Yugoslavia was linked to attempts by Slobodan Milosevic to ethnically cleanse them from Kosovo. I can relate-- as a Jewish American, I am incensed whenever I hear some neo-Nazi saying we come from Khazars, after all. I don't think Albanian editors should have to be subjected to this sort of abuse, which they have thus far dealt with remarkably coolheadedly. On top of this, chilling statements like "Albanian culture is mostly poor and mostly consists of borrowings" poison the atmosphere even more. This gets back to his name: it is portraying all Albanians as chauvinists-- I know many Albanians, they do not (still, they once did) think Alex the Great is Albanian, only hotheads do. This even further poisons the atmosphere. We cannot allow this to happen. Thanks for hearing me out, --Calthinus (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Such inauspicious slandering about ethnic cleansings, Slobodan Milošević and whatnot should be a red-flag to any half-decent individual reading his commentary. Especially since this editor clearly expresses his bad faith by violating the standard procedure of the dispute resolution policy by not focusing on content. Neutrality of the Requests for comment/User names voting was not meet either since the editors (Resnjari, Calthinus) who assume bad faith clearly influenced the voters decision. I am also amazed the entire procedure was concluded so fast in only two days without me even being able to defend myself. I also suspect that there might be an involvement of proxied sock puppetry due to strange coordination between those voters correspondences. Either way, since I have demonstrated my compliance with the Wikipedia's policies, I expect a prompt removal of my blockage. It also appears that someone is in terrible hurry to delete my article, you should immediately suspend Resnjari's Speedy deletion nomination until I am able to explain myself!! Thank you. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. I have to agree with Beeblebrox - if you want anyone to act on your appeal, you will need to make it much more concise. —DoRD (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read WP:GAB. I wouldn’t expect anyne to even read this ridiculous wall of text. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Origin Hypotheses of the Albanians has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Origin Hypotheses of the Albanians. Thanks! Mortee (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Origin Hypotheses of the Albanians

A tag has been placed on Draft:Origin Hypotheses of the Albanians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This draft article is a fringe POV fork of Origin of the Albanians and its creation as an article has been declined, while its author has been hardblocked

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Resnjari (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]