User talk:DHyperion

January 2024
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not vandalising anything. I wrote this article and I don’t agree with your edit. DHyperion (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have a habit and history of going around trying to prove a point that everything was Albanian and not Greek. Stop abusing wikipedia and your powers for your own purposes. You’re the very reason why the internet is toxic. Just because you’re an admin does not make you god. DHyperion (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know who Labridis is and his research has been disproven many times. DHyperion (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The information doesn't come from Labridis directly. It comes from Baltsiotis (2009) and all authors who wrote about the region noted the same linguistic background. The source is Greek academia, it's not wikipedians. Greek historians are the ones who describe this village of Greece as being formerly Albanian-speaking, not wikipedia or any single wikipedian. You should read carefully what reliable sources have to say about any subject. This village is not unique in the Balkans. Thousands of settlements and millions of people who 100-200 years ago spoke one language, now may speak a totally different language in the Balkans.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit is purely political in nature with the intention to sow division in the region - disguised as some academic attempt. This is backed up by your history of changes in articles utilising the same source and same edits. DHyperion (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your academic source is underpinned by an unreliable study based on hearsay. There is no proof to this statement. Furthermore, you have selectively picked something to edit and add with a particular intention in mind. DHyperion (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I agree that your edits are probably not vandalism (as they probably lack malicious intent) and would say that 's warning above is inappropriate. However:
 * I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
 * All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages (in this case, Talk:Mousiotitsa) to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I’m happy to discuss but now someone else has gone in and done the same exact edit but with a different user name. This is obviously targeted and clearly with intentions that go beyond a normal edit. I have no choice but to revert back? This edit should be put on hold. DHyperion (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a joke. You do realise what they are doing? They have found a source and are going around adding it to similar articles. Wikipedia really has gone downhill. I won’t be donating any more money and I regret ever doing so. You have locked the page for editing to avoid vandalism yet you have allowed a politically motivated edit without question. I regret ever creating content on this website now. DHyperion (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * this editor had thrice removed well-sourced content without explanation, hence my warning. In the past I have seen such edits getting a block at AIV. Then they avoided being a vandal by just posting some nonsense here, which is considered by Wikipedia's rules to make this a "content dispute". What is really inappropriate is protecting the article from editing, thus preventing any potential good faith edit from other editors meanwhile, because a single editor wants to remove content they simply do not like. To prove my point, you can ask this editor about what policy-arguments they have. I am quite sure they will bring none. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but you haven’t a clue about what you’re on about. You’re simply seeing this a simple edit when it is not. It is politically motivated and disguised as an academic source. It is a very odd edit, and the same edit has been added to similar articles around wikipedia. There are long standing issues between the two countries and your site is used extensively to justify their own agenda. My article was not trying to make any political points or had any agenda, yet it was targeted in this fashion and you are enabling it using your own code of conduct, which clearly lacks the nuance to cover such cases. DHyperion (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , what I was trying to say is that even an editor ignoring all policies and editing disruptively in their attempts to improve the encyclopedia – for example, to make articles more neutral in their biased perception – is not a vandal, as they are trying to help the project rather than to damage it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yes I know, but they had made 3 attempts to remove well-sourced content without explanation, and in 99% of cases such editors are vandals i.e. they just want to play around. After they posted above, it became clear that they were not a vandal but a nationalistic POV-pusher and I should have reported somewhere other than AIV. Regardless of that, I am still sure they are not interested in having a well-written and neutral article, and even worse, they are not willing to have a proper, policy-based discussion. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I have been enough around editing Balkan topics to usually know when someone is a constructive editor and when not. In such cases, that kind of editor is not much better than an obvious vandal, unfortunately. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope Ktrimi999 enjoyed his little power trip. It’s good to know what kind of people you have moderating. Quite sad and pathetic really. And to think that I have in the past donated money. Well, it ain’t happening again. Feel free to ban me or whatever you want to do. In any case, You’ve locked the article and put it on me to prove my case even though I haven’t done anything wrong. Mr big boy up there who still lives with his mum went on his little pathetic power trip threatening to ban me. What a joke, as if I’m some sort of prolific Wikipedia author! Get a grip, I have written one small article as a favour about a village in Greece and he comes on here threatening people. Get off your high horse mate. As if I have nothing better to do with my time. So, go away and do whatever the hell you want. I hope his little power trip has helped compensate for not having a life. Bye! DHyperion (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)