User talk:Alexyflemming

Archieves;
	Archive 1: 20.02.2010 - 31.01.2014 Archive 2: 01.02.2014 - 03.03.2014 Archive 3: 04.03.2014 - 19.03.2014 Archive 4: 20.03.2014 - 17.09.2014 Archive 5: 18.09.2014 - 13.10.2014

My edits in the area of my expertise

As an expert on Northern Cyprus and Eastern Mediterranean, I have edits in all of the following Wikipedia pages since 2010:
Northern Cyprus, Talk:Northern Cyprus, ‎Turkey
Politics: Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus‎, Cyprus dispute, Cypriot intercommunal violence, United Nations Security Council Resolution 541, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration, Human rights in Northern Cyprus, Exclusive economic zone, Mediterranean Oil Dispute‎, Military of Northern Cyprus, List of Republics
Demography: Population transfer, Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, Cypriot refugees, Template:PopulationChartUnder1m, List of countries by population, List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density,
Locations: Mediterranean Sea, Template:Municipalities of Northern Cyprus, Kyrenia, Güzelyurt District, Morphou, Famagusta, Trikomo, Cyprus, Ayios Andronikos, Cyprus, Ayios Seryios, Cyprus, Lefka, Karpass Peninsula, Bellapais
Transportation: Ercan International Airport, Nicosia International Airport
Education: Education in Northern Cyprus, Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus, Cyprus International University, University of Kyrenia
Sports: Sport in Northern Cyprus, World Pool-Billiard Association, European Pocket Billiard Federation, European Cyclists' Federation, Paragliding, Professional Football Leagues
Geography: List of countries by easternmost point, Pentadaktylos, List of countries by highest point, List of islands of Northern Cyprus, List of islands#Europe
Culture: List of top international rankings by country, Bayrak (TV Channel of Northern Cyprus)
Religion: Religions by country, Religion in Europe, Religion in Northern Cyprus
Tourism: Tourism in Northern Cyprus
Others: North Cyprus Red Crescent Society, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 26 ‎ (Is Northern Cyprus a Eurasian country?), Cittaslow
Files: Long Beach Trikomo.jpg

United States Federal Court also Kicked Greek Cypriots

United States Federal Court: "..Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington". Source.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus related articles

Not actionable because this topic area is not covered by discretionary sanctions.

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under these discretionary sanctions. So unless I've missed something, this case is not currently actionable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cyprus is not part of the Balkans and therefore not covered by the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Closing as not actionable. Sandstein 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Arbitration Committee: "In our infinite wisdom, we determine that Cyprus does not fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanction.

ANI

Responses.

Regarding this, you might want to consider WP:TLDR. I, for one, am not likely to read a wall of text such as that. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term disruption on Cyprus articles. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your long-term disruptive approach to editing on the topic of Cyprus is the reason for your block. Wikipedia is not the place to push a particular point of view on a subject. We need to present a balanced neutral view, especially in volatile topic areas. Your incredibly long talk page posts do not help generate collegial discussion, but rather are disruptive and counterproductive. Edit warring your preferred version of articles is also disruptive. Recent examples of edit warring: History of Northern Cyprus, Modern history of Cyprus, Northern Cyprus. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alexyflemming (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A. Diannaa, yes, it is "Cyprus", not "Cypress"...

B. We need to present a balanced neutral view, especially in volatile topic areas:
I defended that neutral point in various places and offered the usage of "neutral phrasing used by United Nations to describe the things in Cyprus dispute":

United Nations's standard way of currently handling the issue is from neutral point of view always:

United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Mandate: "...Following the hostilities of 1974, ..."

United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Background: "Since the events of 1974, ..."

The descriptions they qualify as "euphemisms"/"POV" are used by United Nations.

C. Your incredibly long talk page posts do not help generate collegial discussion, but rather are disruptive and counterproductive:
So, let you block every Wiki user that tries to explain things as much as clear? Lengthness of posts cannot be a blocking reason alone.

D. Edit warring your preferred version of articles is also disruptive: I am not the 3RR violator. See the timeline of edits last time carefully to solve who violated 3RR for example:

Bbb23: "@Dr.K.: (or anyone else who knows) is the earliest edit in the revert list way above a brand new addition or the restoration of material previously removed?"

15.10.2014:07.43: I added Arbitration Committee's decision "The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanction" to Talk page of Northern Cyprus (to let Wiki users edit via keeping this in mind)
15.10.2014:07.48: Dr.K. immediately removed resulting decision of Arbitration Committee from Talk page of Northern Cyprus.
........
15.10.2014:07.47: Dr.Κ. also reverted my edit on Northern Cyprus in the pretext that "edit-war against consensus. (The reality is just the opposite. See below:) ".

But, Dr.Κ. distorted again: He presented as if there is a consensus on removing the relevant material!
14.10.2014; 20.16: (my first edit) after my first edit
14.10.2014:20.30: an unkown IP31 reverted my edit vandalistically on the pretext that "This is about a case a US court did not, actually hear.".

14.10.2014, 21.08: I then presented the USA Federal Court really heared the case and decided the verdict on Talk page. I have supplied USA Federal Court decision from the official website of the Court.

14.10.2014:21.42: Wikipedian Alexikoua reacted the unknown IP31's vandalism. (edit summary of Alexikoua: "rv essential part removal"). Alexikoua is a Hellen, but neutral like me.

15.10.2014:00.37: This time another unknown IP85 appeared and removed the edit without any edit summary. Hence, essentially removed the sourced context that Alexikoua opposes to be removed besides me.

15.10.2014:00.38: Wikipedian MelbourneStar reacted to the unknown IP85's vandalism and protected the edit.

15.10.2014:00.58: This time, Dr.K. appeared and reverted the edit with edit summary (Reverted 1 edit by MelbourneStar: Sorry Star. IP 31.xx was correct. Reverting undue POV-push by SPA. Please see Arbitration Enforcement report.) without waiting my defense in Arbitration Enforcement and the resulting decision of Arbitration Committee]].

15.10.2014:05.23: Arbitration Committee rejected Dr.K.:

Not actionable because this topic area is not covered by discretionary sanctions.

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under these discretionary sanctions. So unless I've missed something, this case is not currently actionable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cyprus is not part of the Balkans and therefore not covered by the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Closing as not actionable. Sandstein 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15.10.2014:07.45: I replace the edit whose protection is the consensus of the known Wiki users (Alexikoua,MelbourneStar).

15.10.2014:07.47: Dr.K. reverted with edit summary "edit-war against consensus"

E. There is a very clear Distortion of History of one of the related parties:
a. (09.02.2014) "hiding the name of the principal initiator of that war";
Dr.Κ.: "The term "1974 Cyprus War" is misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey"

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

Look at what you wrote a couple of lines below: Britannica: In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, atempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis.. Hence, you disprove yourself your "hiding principal initiator" arguement. Notice that, almost whatever is handled in Cyprus dispute, there is some degree of bias just as your new "principal initiator" arguement. It should be Wikipedia's neutrality aim to be free from this conflict of interests. Also, 15.07.1974, Coup and declaration of "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", 19.07.1974, Makarios' speech at UN SG: "Cyprus invaded by Greece", 20.07.1974, Turkey's meddling. Are 15.07.1974 and 19.07.1974 not preceding 20.07.1974? Are
- "coup",
- "Declaration of Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", "Enosis (union with Greece)",
- "Makarios(1st President of Cyprus, in UN SC meeting): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece""
not initiator for a war?

The facts:

20.07.1974 (I-day): Turkey's military operation to Cyprus.

19.07.1974 (just 1 day before I-day): Makarios, 1st president of Cyprus, a Greek Cypriot, on United Nations Security Council Meeting: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"

17.07.1974 (3 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson: "I declare "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus""

15.07.1974 (5 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson finished Makarios with a coup."

b. (03.03.2014) island nation of Cyprus;
Dr.Κ.: "Historically, the island and the island nation of Cyprus have been considered to be the same."

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

When one mentions a certain people as a nation, there appears at least one dominant character (religion, ethnicity, language, culture, etc.) in that people. What is the religion, ethnicity, language, culture of this "the" island "nation" pre-1571 and post 1571? Forget experts even beginners know that there is no "the" "nation" in Cyprus island. Pre-1571 it was "CatholicChristian/OrthodoxChristian", "Frankish&Italian/GreekCypriot", "Latin/Greek", "Latin/Helen"; post-1571 it was "Islam/OrthodoxChristian", "Turk/Greek", "Turkish/Greek", "Turk/Helen". There occurred lots of conflicts, struggles and wars for the last millennium within the people of Cyprus island since the people of Cyprus island is not a "nation". This "the" island "nation" injection of bias/pre-conditioning is rather a merit of a politician, not a fair Wikipedian.

As an expert, I want to redirect you to Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus, you know):

This way, Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus) emphasized the absence of "the" "nation" of Cyprus island!:

Makarios:"Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus"

Makarios: "Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus"

Makarios:"There's only one living Cypriot in Cyprus and that is the Cypriot donkey"

c. (03.11.2014) "forcible eviction".
Dr.Κ.: ""Northern Cyprus" ....is the result of forcible population evictions".

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Greek Cypriots in Agios Andronikos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Greek Cypriots in Agia Triada chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Maronites in Asomatos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Maronites in Karpasia chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Maronites in Kormakitis chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Turkish Cypriots in Lemmossol chose to stay in southern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Cyprus in 2014.

All the rest chose voluntarily to switch the sides in 1975 according to "Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement on 02.08.1975" between Turkish and Greek Cypriots (Third Vienna Agreement) under the auspices of United Nations.

i.e. if all of the Greek Cypriots in Kyrenia had chosen to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and all of them now would be living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Since this is so, the Greek Cypriots (who want to return Northern Cyprus) were/are/will be always rejected wherever they go:

USA Federal Court (09.10.2014): "..Greek Cypriots CANNOT CLAIM here that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots...."

The news of the decision of the Court: (13.10.2014): http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm

The website of the case of the Court: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002

The decision of the Court.....: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53

NOTE: Previously, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected Greek Cypriots' request to return Northern Cyprus.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (27.05.2010): (Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] and Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90]): “The houses which the Greek Cypriots left in North Cyprus are not their homes any more because they have lived almost for all their lives in another place and they have no concrete and persisting links with the houses they claimed. Therefore Greek Cypriots have no right to return to the North.” Sources:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Asproftas"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98684"]}

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Petrakidou"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98688"]}

F. Since this "Distortion of History" is revealed very clearly, that related party used every insulting word towards me:
Dr.K. said "Silly" to me.
Neo ^ said "Paid Supporter" to me.
Despite all these insulting words, I protected my common sense, and did not respond them in the way they are accustomed towards me.
Alexyflemming (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of the volunteer administators are likely to try to follow this huge pile of links and comments. Feel free to make another unblock request, preferably adhering to our guide to appealing blocks. 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpgordon (talk • contribs)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

I agree with declining this unblock request. Sure, disproving the claim of longterm POV editing and edit warring may take up some space, but this is not the way to do it: it's a mountain of sections and diffs and their organization is sorely lacking. I tried following a couple of them, to no avail since it's not clear what I'm supposed to find there--but what's immediately clear to me is that there is indeed a history of edit-warring, like over this little diff] here, where the function of the inserted text is entirely unclear, and the edit was reverted by three different editors. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Regarding the diff you supplied, the reason for it becomes clear when you check Alexyflemming's propaganda blog on Disqus. The edit is an item on his blog. There are other items as well on that blog, for instance the SBA claims and attacks on Greek Cypriots: Alexy flemmings Carl B. 7 days ago United Nations Reports the other way around! There are proofs of the fact that Greek Cypriots are applying brutal ethnic cleansing towards Turkish Cypriots!. and on Cyprus: Cyprus agrees to buy Israeli vessels costing €100m Alexy flemmings a year ago Miserable Kiproulla (Kiproulla-->little Cyprus) became superpower now :) It seems he tries to import his blog propaganda on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyproulla is a given name too (must've been a diminutive of Κυπριανή), though I don't think anybody's naming their children that anymore. ...and that's it for today's trivia. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following collapsed item on his blog he has plastered in various forms on several talkpages on Wikipedia. Please see example on Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Interestingly very similar walls of text have been contributed to by socks of sockmaster Justice Forever in exactly the same loud, capitals-ridden form. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justice Forever. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blog piece on Turkish invasion of Cyprus

All knows that Turkey's intervention on Cyprus is COMPLETELY legal: 1. Article IV(2) Treaty of Guarantee: In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. IN SO FAR AS COMMON OR CONCERTED ACTION MAY NOT PROVE POSSIBLE, EACH OF THE THREE GUARANTEEING POWERS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION. 2. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): On 29 July 1974, PACE affirmed (via Resolution 573) that "the Turkish military INTERVENTION was the EXERCISE OF A RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the fulfilment of a legal and moral obligation." 3. On 21 March 1979, GREECE's ATHENS COURT OF APPEALS decided that "The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZURICH AND LONDON ACCORDS, WAS LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, HAD THE RIGHT lo fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this intervention" 4. There is no United Nations that calls Turkey's action on Cyprus as INVASION. All UN resolutions till now mentions it as INTERVENTION. 5. Though UN Security Council declared "TRNC's Declaration of Independence was illegal"; However, in 2010, Permanent Court of Justice of UN (that is supeior to UN SC) decided that "In international law, there is NOTHING for prohibiting Declarations of Independences", and decided in favor of Kosovo. Now, Kosovo is recognized by 106 UN countries.

@Drmies: Drmies:"Disproving the claim of longterm POV editing and edit warring..."

Please, Diannaa and Drmies, just look at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page that caused this block:

Thomas.W: "I don't think Alexyflemming is trolling he's clearly on a mission, and not here to build an encyclopaedia..."

The Banner: "I am not sure if user Alexyflemming is indeed trolling"

The action-requesting Wiki user (IP213.7.147.34) insulted The Banner as "spouting nonsense" even in the ANI page!

Dr.K. supported, but he is very well known figure for his insults to one of the related parties and his blatant Distortions of History:

1. Dr.K. said "Silly" to me!

2. After saying "Silly" to me, Dr.K.'s hate/enmity/obsession towards me reached to the degree that "He said in his Disqus that..., He said in his Twitter that...".

In Wikipedia, only our edits in WP bind us! The examples I gave about Dr.K.'s blatant distortions of History are all from Wikipedia! That said, I still back what I wrote in Disqus as well:

The proof of info in Disqus

info: "United Nations Reports the other way around! There are proofs of the fact that Greek Cypriots are applying brutal ethnic cleansing towards Turkish Cypriots!"
Then–United Nations Secretary General, U Thant's Report (UN SG S/5950 Report 10.09.1964, paragraph 180):
"UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances; it shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting".
Source: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Chapter-VII-S-5950.pdf
most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed means none of the solely Greek Cypriot villages was damaged!

3. Dr.K.'s blatant distortions to History:

a. (09.02.2014) "hiding the name of the principal initiator of that war";

Dr.Κ.: "The term "1974 Cyprus War" is misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey"

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

Look at what you wrote a couple of lines below: Britannica: In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, atempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis.. Hence, you disprove yourself your "hiding principal initiator" arguement. Notice that, almost whatever is handled in Cyprus dispute, there is some degree of bias just as your new "principal initiator" arguement. It should be Wikipedia's neutrality aim to be free from this conflict of interests. Also, 15.07.1974, Coup and declaration of "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", 19.07.1974, Makarios' speech at UN SG: "Cyprus invaded by Greece", 20.07.1974, Turkey's meddling. Are 15.07.1974 and 19.07.1974 not preceding 20.07.1974? Are
- "coup",
- "Declaration of Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", "Enosis (union with Greece)",
- "Makarios(1st President of Cyprus, in UN SC meeting): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece""
not initiator for a war?

The facts:

20.07.1974 (I-day): Turkey's military operation to Cyprus.

19.07.1974 (just 1 day before I-day): Makarios, 1st president of Cyprus, a Greek Cypriot, on United Nations Security Council Meeting: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"

17.07.1974 (3 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson: "I declare "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus""

15.07.1974 (5 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson finished Makarios with a coup."

b. (03.03.2014) island nation of Cyprus;

Dr.Κ.: "Historically, the island and the island nation of Cyprus have been considered to be the same."

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

When one mentions a certain people as a nation, there appears at least one dominant character (religion, ethnicity, language, culture, etc.) in that people. What is the religion, ethnicity, language, culture of this "the" island "nation" pre-1571 and post 1571? Forget experts even beginners know that there is no "the" "nation" in Cyprus island. Pre-1571 it was "CatholicChristian/OrthodoxChristian", "Frankish&Italian/GreekCypriot", "Latin/Greek", "Latin/Helen"; post-1571 it was "Islam/OrthodoxChristian", "Turk/Greek", "Turkish/Greek", "Turk/Helen". There occurred lots of conflicts, struggles and wars for the last millennium within the people of Cyprus island since the people of Cyprus island is not a "nation". This "the" island "nation" injection of bias/pre-conditioning is rather a merit of a politician, not a fair Wikipedian.

As an expert, I want to redirect you to Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus, you know):

This way, Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus) emphasized the absence of "the" "nation" of Cyprus island!:

Makarios:"Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus"

Makarios: "Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus"

Makarios:"There's only one living Cypriot in Cyprus and that is the Cypriot donkey"

c. (03.11.2014) "forcible eviction".

Dr.Κ.: ""Northern Cyprus" ....is the result of forcible population evictions".

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Greek Cypriots in Agios Andronikos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Greek Cypriots in Agia Triada chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Maronites in Asomatos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Maronites in Karpasia chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Maronites in Kormakitis chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Turkish Cypriots in Lemmossol chose to stay in southern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Cyprus in 2014.

All the rest chose voluntarily to switch the sides in 1975 according to "Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement on 02.08.1975" between Turkish and Greek Cypriots (Third Vienna Agreement) under the auspices of United Nations.

i.e. if all of the Greek Cypriots in Kyrenia had chosen to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and all of them now would be living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Since this is so, the Greek Cypriots (who want to return Northern Cyprus) were/are/will be always rejected wherever they go:

USA Federal Court (09.10.2014): "..Greek Cypriots CANNOT CLAIM here that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots...."

The news of the decision of the Court: (13.10.2014): http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm

The website of the case of the Court: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002

The decision of the Court.....: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53

NOTE: Previously, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected Greek Cypriots' request to return Northern Cyprus.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (27.05.2010): (Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] and Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90]): “The houses which the Greek Cypriots left in North Cyprus are not their homes any more because they have lived almost for all their lives in another place and they have no concrete and persisting links with the houses they claimed. Therefore Greek Cypriots have no right to return to the North.” Sources:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Asproftas"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98684"]}

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Petrakidou"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98688"]}

@Drmies: there is indeed a history of edit-warring, like over this little diff here

In your example, an unknown username (IP99.247.112.91) reverted without any consensus. If one clearly looks at the diffs of Northern Cyprus, it is seen that there are ample amount of reverts from these unestablished user names (IP99.247.112.91, IP213.7.147.34, IP62.228.207.119, IP80.212.215.188, IP31.17.153.189, etc. ).

Though it is very normal in WP to edit with IPs, it is not normal to distrupting/trolling with IPs!

Alexyflemming (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Truncating the quote from me, the way you've done in your wall of text above, totally changes what I said, in an obvious attempt to make others believe that I more or less supported you. Which is a s far from the truth as it can be. The part you left out said "... he's clearly on a mission, and not here to build an encyclopaedia". Which, as you can see in the block banner, is what you then got indefinitely blocked for. Thomas.W ^talk 09:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My aim was just to show that there are opposite views... My aim was not to truncate your post. In the above my defense, I have already been criticized for long comments. Just for the sake of keeping it short, I presented the beginnings. I added the rest of your comment above now, as you described here. Please, do not misunderstand me. See the above please. Thank you.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BS. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors, particularly the next admin to review your repeated "unblock requests". Thomas.W ^talk 09:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors, particularly the next admin to review...

Nope, I restored your part as soon as I see your response and as soon as I aware there is a misunderstanding.

I restored your related longer comment within about 10 minutes! Perhaps, I still misunderstand you. I think your comments was supporting me 51%. If that is not so, please state so that I remove your post from above.

...your repeated "unblock requests"

I only made 1 unblock request till now. And, I really regret that it was rejected with the pretext that "my defense is too long". By the same token, by saying "repeated unblock request", do not you think that you are conditioning the later Administrators who will handle the situation?

BS. I really expected more than "they are not swearing words" (from you) for the insults we experienced (Dr.K. said "Silly" to me, Neo ^ said "Paid Supporter" to me, IP213.7.147.34 said "Spouting Nonsense" to The Banner).

IP213 is editing in WP since 28.09.2014, I am in WP since 2010. IP213 even showed his tone of stance in the very ANI page!

Note that IP213 is changing its IP on weekly basis (..and at the same time he is accusing me trolling...):

IP31.153.94.214 (28.09-07.10 2014), IP93.109.171.237 (18-24.10 2014), IP31.153.72.171 (24-29.10 2014), IP213.7.147.34 (29.10 - 05.11 2014),...

Alexyflemming (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K.:, you wrote to ANI page:

*@Alexyflemmin: You, talking about being respectful to other users? Remember your message on my talkpage?: Armenians said billions of times "genocide" since 1915 just as Greek Cypriots say billions of times "invasion" since 1974 and I said One can bury his head in the sand like an ostrich till the hunter (truth) faces him.. Please, transmit my this message to GC fanatics (perhaps you may know some of them) along with USA Federal Court decision so that they can take their heads out of sands. And this is just one of your many personal attacks.

But, I wrote your talk page exactly this one:

United States Federal Court Decision

Armenians said billions of times "genocide" since 1915 just as Greek Cypriots say billions of times "invasion" since 1974.
European Court of Human Rights (2013): "1915 events cannot be qualified as genocide".
On 13 October 2014, United States Federal Court ruled that "..Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington".courthousenews (Source:Courthouse News Service)
I said One can bury his head in the sand like an ostrich till the hunter (truth) faces him.. Please, transmit my this message to GC fanatics (perhaps you may know some of them) along with USA Federal Court decision so that they can take their heads out of sands.

Why did you truncate the very important relevant part above (i.e. ECtHR's decision)?

Alexyflemming (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is neither here nor there, but I'd like to comment on his forcible eviction 'disproof'.

A majority of Greek Cypriots fled from the advancing Turkish army during the 2nd invasion. Those who stayed behind in Kyrenia were expelled to the south sometime later. Those who stayed behind in villages were put in camps and mistreated; some were expelled in retaliation for the mistreatment of Turkish Cypriots in the south. After the signing of the Population Exchange Agreement, they were formally allowed to leave so that they'd be reunited with their families on the other side. The agreement also provided for the protection of their human rights should they wish to stay, but this clause was allegedly not respected. By 1981, only 1,000 Greek Cypriots remained in the north. (You can find this information in PRIO's 5th report on internal displacement in Cyprus. [1])

My point is, the agreement came long after the landscape had been shaped. The way Alexy phrased it would lead the uninitiated reader to believe that the displacement of Greek Cypriots was a direct consequence of this agreement, which is nothing short of ahistorical rubbish. Indeed, Alexy has mastered cherry-picking like no other. This is also evidenced by the way he's been misquoting everybody here. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of Greek Cypriots fled from the advancing Turkish army during the 2nd invasion.

Some Greek Cypriots fled! That is it!

Some Greek Cypriots did not fled (those in Rizokarpaso, Agios Andronikos, Agia Triada).

Some Maronites did not fled (those in Asomatos, Karpasia, Kormakitis) as well.

Some Turkish Cypriots did not fled (those in Lemmossol) as well.

There is a giant difference between:

"FLEDING of Greek Cypriots/Maronites with the fear of their lives during hostilities/events of 1974" and

"Turkey FORCEFULLY EVICTED those Greek Cypriots/Maronites from their houses"!!!

Those who stayed behind in villages were put in camps and mistreated

Stop blatant propaganda. The Greek Cypriots (Rizokarpaso, Agios Andronikos, Agia Triada) and Maronites (Asomatos, Karpasia, Kormakitis) are living in the North both pre-1974 and post-1974 and now in-2014.

If they experienced mistreat from Turkish Cypriots, then definitely they will go the South once the borders are opened in 2003! They are still living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.

Are the Greek Cypriots/Maronites who still remains in Northern Cyprus in 2014 Masochists??!! Definitely not!

some Greek Cypriots were expelled in retaliation for the mistreatment of Turkish Cypriots in the south

Blatant propaganda.

After the signing of the Population Exchange Agreement, they were formally allowed to leave so that they'd be reunited with their families on the other side

So, there is no "eviction". It is their desire to re-unite with their families. If they had chosen to stay in their sides in 1975, they will be living in the very same side in 2014!

By 1981, only 1,000 Greek Cypriots remained in the north.

Criton Tornaritis (the-then Attorney-General of Rep. of Cyprus): "The entire Greek population of the north did not exceed 129,000 prior to the events of 1974".

After 1974 war, about a little more than 20,000 GCs opted to chose in the North.

GCs chose to go to the south by their own will (language difference in the North, education, job opportunity, etc. in the south of Cyprus). There is no eviction.

the agreement came long after the landscape had been shaped

Landscape Shaping: 15.07 - 16.08.1974

1st Population Exchange Agreement (November-December 1974)

2nd Population Exchange Agreement (Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement under the auspices of UN: 02.08.1975)

i.e. ALMOST IN 1 YEAR! Not "Long After"!

the displacement of Greek Cypriots was a direct consequence of this agreement, which is nothing short of a historical rubbish

In November-December 1974 there was another population exchange agreement, and some population exchange was already realized with them.

Independent of the agreements (the one in November-December 1974 and the one in 02.08.1975 ("voluntary population exchange agreement")), some changed their side as well.

Page 25 from the same source you gave: A Turkish Cypriot:

"When we were about to be released from the prison camp, a Greek Cypriot officer accompanied by a UN officer asked us where we wanted to go: Turkey [sic] or our village?"

Similarly, Turks asked Greek Cypriots the question: where do you want to go: (South) Cyprus or stay in your village in the North?" in the context of "Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement" on 02.08.1975.

Alexyflemming (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said in my 2nd paragraph is paraphrased from the PRIO report. I'm afraid you're gonna have to take it up with them. They'll also be very keen to hear about this first agreement. Forcible eviction wasn't my wording, so please don't bother me with that. (Though considering they have no right of return, it is tantamount to eviction.) 213.7.147.34 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ENGLISH language is not that difficult for you to understand:

There is a giant difference between:

"FLEDING of Greek Cypriots/Maronites with the fear of their lives during hostilities/events of 1974" and

"Turkey FORCEFULLY EVICTED those Greek Cypriots/Maronites FROM THEIR HOUSES"!!!

Alexyflemming (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you may see in the introductory marks in my User Talk page, I am an expert of Northern Cyprus, and I will present you the Text of 1st agreement ("Population Exchange Agreement of November-December 1974") from the Official United Nations documents as well. Please, wait a little bit.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, but even if there is such an agreement, we can't reasonably use it for anything, other than to report that it existed; an agreement is not proof that anybody's acted on it. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you: "an agreement is not proof that anybody's acted on it". The border btw the N and S is 300 km. It is neither fully fenced in 2014 nor was in 1974-75. Hence, there were many gaps in the border in 1974-75, the border was porous. TCs and GCs switched side without the auspices of the administration of the side they lived. As for the population exchanges till the 02.08.1975 "Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement":

25-27.08.1974: The intercommunal talks under auspice of UN SG in C (who visited Cyp)

06.09.1974: 1st Preliminary Agreement (UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 15, para.11)

11.09.1974: 2nd Agreement (UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 2, para. 17)

13.09.1974: 3rd Agreement (UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 2, para. 19)

16.09.1974: The realization of 1st exchange (Ledra P. Nicosia); 116 GCs, 126 TCs

20.09.1974: The parties exchanged the list to each other (UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 14 b)

21.09.1974: The realization of 2nd exchange (Ledra P. Nicosia); 42 GCs, 111 TCs (UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 15)

23.09.1974: The realization of 3rd exchange (Ledra P. Nicosia) (UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 15)

30.09.1974: The agreement of the intercommunal meeting

02.10.1974: Acc. to "30.09" agreement, 106 GCs were returned to their villages in Karpasia under Turkish control

03.10.1974: Acc. to "30.09" agreement, 35 GCs were returned to their villages of Bellapais and 4 to Morphou under Turkish control. 19 GCs opted to come to the south.

November 1974: "special agreements" for the exhange was decided in the intercommunal negotiations

11.11.1974: Intercommunal agreement: "1500 GCs (of Voni, Gypsou) will move to the south"

18.11.1974: 389 GCs (of Voni) moved to the south

30.11.1974: 734 GCs (of Gypsou) moved to the south, 250 TCs (of Mandres) moved to the north (UN Doc. S/11568, para. 47)

06.12.1974: Altogether 533 GCs went to their villages in the north; 84 TCs moved to the north (UN Doc. S/11568, para. 51)

06.12.1974: UN Report (UN Doc. S/11568, para. 51): Till now, 2496 GCs and 3320 TCs switched side.

09.06.1975: 229 GCs moved to the south (UN Doc. S/11717, para. 40)

100 GCs in Bellapais allowed to go to their houses and move freely (UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 16, para. 8)

7 GCs were permitted by Turkish Cypriot authorities to return to their homes in Kyrenia (UN Doc. S/11717, para. 40)

02.08.1975 Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement under auspices of UN.

AlexyFlemming ^talk 13:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a timeline in this: First, a majority of Greek Cypriots fled from the advancing Turkish army during the 2nd invasion. Then, exchange agreements were negotiated to handle the situation of those who were stuck on the "wrong side". But then it cannot have been the exchange agreement that was the reason that most Greek Cypriots left their villages in the north, can it? --T*U (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in your "First,..." and "Then...". Could you please explain little further the last part? I did not understand what you wanna say.AlexyFlemming ^talk 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have systematically removed all mention of GCs fleeing from the invasion, and you have instead plastered all over NC-related articles a text saying that GCs left the north voluntarily after the exchange agreement. The resulting impression was that the agreement came first, then the movement of people, which was only true for a small minority. It is fine that you now agree to what came "First,...". That is a first! --T*U (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... all over NC-related articles a text saying that GCs left the north voluntarily after the exchange agreement...":

"UN Doc. S/..." means United Nations' Document. There is no NC-related article in the above information!

"the agreement came first, then the movement of people:"

I did not say it for the whole process. The agreements and movements of people were not 100% realized based on Agreements.

See above: non-fenced 300 km border, gaps, porous border...etc.

"...agreement on "First,...". That is a first!":

My emphasis on the pre- and post- events of 02.08.1975 agreement might cause such a misunderstanding of you. I was already in knowledge of the above chronology (from August1974 to August1975) and that "The agreements and movements of people were not 100% realized based on Agreements".

That said, the facts are that:

- Majority of the Greek Cypriots in the north fled to the south fearing their lives during the 1974-war. (Turks' armies did not evict them from their houses)

- Majority of the remaining Greek Cypriots exchanged with the Turkish Cypriots in the south and moved to the south based on the intercommunal agreements. (No eviction)

- Small number of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots switched their side independent of the agreements by their own will. (No eviction)

Are all OK now? AlexyFlemming ^talk 08:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexyflemming, in between the bulleted lists, collapsed sections, bold and underlined print, indented paragraphs, blockquotes, and citations (?) in a different font and color, I can't make heads or tails of any of this. And your user talk page may well claim that you're an expert, but even if that were true it doesn't exempt you from acting in accordance with our guidelines and rules of engagement. BTW, this section is so big that my netbook can't keep up with my typing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx 4 your feedback. Hereafter, I'll try to keep as short as possible.AlexyFlemming ^talk 09:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alexyflemming (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In my blocking summary, it is written: "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia". Please see the "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not":
Differences of edits of Wiki users with different approachs that arise where both users are in good faith hoping to improve the project should not be mistaken for "not being here to build an encyclopedia".
Diversity in interests and inputs from specialists in many fields help us function as a comprehensive encyclopedia.
The community encompasses a very wide range of views. A user may believe a communal norm is too narrow or poorly approaches an issue, and take actions internally consistent with that viewpoint, such as advocating particular positions in discussions. Provided the user does so in an honest attempt to improve the encyclopedia, in a constructive manner, and assuming the user's actions are not themselves disruptive, such conversations form the genesis for improvement to Wikipedia.
A user wishes to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. While these can lead to warnings, blocks or even bans in some cases, failure to adapt to a norm is not, by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively.
Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner: Merely advocating changes to Wikipedia articles or policies, even if those changes are incompatible with Wikipedia's principles, is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The dissenting editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:SOAPBOX, WP:IDHT, and WP:CIVIL in the course of expressing unpopular opinions.
* I am not in WP to damage WP, I am in WP since 2010 with lots of constructive edits (please, see above Wiki pages I contributed) in a specific area. The area of my expertise being "volatile", "full of conflicts", etc. should not result in blocking of mine:
* Please note also that (since 2010) even though I am insulted with the words "Silly", "Paid Supporter", etc. for my views, I protected my common sense and politeness. * My constructive discussions continued during my blocking period in my Talk page as well. Thanks. AlexyFlemming ^talk 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unless you agree to stop your incessant arguing about Cyprus, I see not reason to unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Ohnoitsjamie:, do you want me to contribute in the areas that I am not capable enough? I have edits in other areas other than Cyprus; their numbers are less if compared with Cyprus; OK. But, before all, I am an expert on Cyprus. You force me to edit in the areas I am novice.AlexyFlemming ^talk 15:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly an expert at bickering about Cyprus, I'll give you that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Part E in my first unblock request. I really regret that you qualify it as "bickering". I am trying to contribute the building of a neutral/objective encyclopedia. Please, please, read my first unblock request. The emphasized neutrality part as well. Thanks. AlexyFlemming ^talk 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just 'cause you insist that something's true doesn't make it true. Neutrality means giving a fair overview of reliable sources. (Hint: this is what you're not doing.) It's got nothing to do with your own conviction of right and wrong. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It amuses me that you thought this was the right time to change your signature. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuously changing your IP "IP31.153.94.214 (28.09-07.10 2014), IP93.109.171.237 (18-24.10 2014), IP31.153.72.171 (24-29.10 2014), IP213.7.147.34 (29.10 - 05.11 2014),.." does not amuse me. Just thank to the tolerance of Wikipedia.

BS. The only change is first letter of surname capitalized, "Talk" was superscripted. There is no considerable change to deceive others. My signature was "Alexyflemming" since 2010, now it is "AlexyFlemming". You made mountains out of molehills!AlexyFlemming ^talk 18:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never did say that you intended to deceive anybody with this. I genuinely found it amusing that you changed your sig now that you're indef'ed. Don't you see some irony in that? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter if they see irony in it or not? Please leave the user alone, Mr/Ms IP. It's inconsiderate to taunt a blocked user about little things like their sig — it's the wrong time for it. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't think I was taunting him and yes, you're right, I probably shouldn't have said anything about his sig, but I don't see why I have to 'leave [him] alone'. If Alexy doesn't wanna talk with me, he's perfectly capable of saying so himself; he's been replying to my comments above. I think it's odd that you thought it right to criticise me for a comment I left in jest, but you've not said a word about his accusing me of vandalism, or for having a dynamic IP -- or any of the rest of it, really. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, thank you for your sensitivity. Please, be know that I endured much more than "being taunted with little things":

Dr.K. insulted me: Dr.K. said "Silly" to me.

Neo ^ insulted me: Neo ^ said "Paid Supporter" to me.

This very user (IP213.7.147.34) insulted to The Banner (a user in WP since 2009) and said "Spouting Nonsense" to him even in the ANI (Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents) page in which he requested an action for me!. Anyway, protecting common sense against these disrespectful users is a way to reveal the difference between us and them! AlexyFlemming ^talk 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was mild. Many people in my place wouldn't have taken so kindly to The Banner's aspersions. Indeed, if anybody should be reprimanded, that's The Banner. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a funny guy, mr. IP. I try to withdraw from this highly emotional/political/POV discussion, and you suddenly come after me? I want to be kept out of this mess. The Banner talk 21:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might notice, it's Alexy who brought it up; I only thought it appropriate to respond -- this time. He mentioned our altercation twice before (scroll up), but I'd ignored it. Secondly, you put yourself in this mess: you began harassing me without provocation. I'd have appreciated an apology, but short of that, will you stop digging a deeper hole? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you read it correctly Alexy states This very user (IP213.7.147.34) insulted to The Banner so he stated that you insulted me. But as a result, you attack me. And what I do is just asking: leave me out of this mess. Go away. I don't want to be part of your Cyprus/North Cyprus war. Prior, I have asked you to face the present political reality. It is clear that your refuse to do that. That is why I baled out and want the mess just with you and not want to be involved. The Banner talk 22:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Wow, this is frustrating. First of all, do you honestly believe that the way you've been treating me is a-ok? What do you base your accusation that I refuse to 'face the present political reality' on? Two other people have tried to mediate, but you've shunned them too. Does User:Dr.K. also refuse to face the political reality? Does the same hold for User:TU-nor? For someone who's bailed out, you don't see to wanna let go. Finally, I might insist on this, not because I wanna bring you into any mess, but 'cause I cannot fathom what it is that's got into your head. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my country they call this behaviour: attack another to hide your own wrongdoings. Good night. The Banner talk 23:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, never mind that you're the one who began attacking me first simply because, as you admitted, my IP is in south Cyprus. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good spat. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Hi Bishonen. I am sick and tired of this account's continuing misrepresentations of my "silly" remark to him. If you check the diff he gave you, he added an attacking edit-summary to his message on my talkpage: In Wikipedia, you, Dr.K., do not have any right to delete the replies of other Wikipedians to each other! If you continue to delete my replies to other Wiki users, I will report the case to the Arbitration Committee. to which I replied in my edit summary: (Reverted 1 edit by Alexyflemming (talk): Don't be silly. I restored it soon after: Special:Diff/596946493. meaning that I had already restored his comment, which he did not bother to verify before coming to my talkpage with that attacking edit-summary. He grossly overreacted by leaving that attacking edit-summary and message on my talk and under the circumstances, I consider my remark to him to have been mild and justified. These misrepresentations are the trademark of this account. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dr. K, don't let it get under your skin. No, AlexyFleming, Dr. K. didn't insult you, don't be absurd. But I decline to be drawn into exploring any further accusations and counter-accusations on this page — that would be cruel and unusual punishment for merely advising against taunting a blocked user, no matter how wrong he is. It's just poor form, that. OK, I'm done on this page. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Dr.K.:, you continuously insulted me with the word "Silly". That was not the only case you did it!

24.02.2014: Dr.K. to me:"Don't be silly".

30.10.2014: You qualified my views like this: Dr.K. to me: "we are correcting his silly propaganda"

Did you ever see me using such impolite words and insults ("Silly", "Paid Supporter", "Spouting Nonsense", etc.) to any Wiki user! I am here in Wikipedia since 2010; you are since 2006! AlexyFlemming ^talk 09:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked

I have removed your latest posts on this page and revoked your access to editing it. No page on Wikipedia is to be used for abuse. If you wish to request unblock, please go to the page WP:UTRS and follow instructions there. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/Alexyflemming, 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.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Denizli, Cyprus

The article Denizli, Cyprus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no indication of notability for this village.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/Alexyflemming, 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.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/Alexyflemming, 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.

Dr. K. 00:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]