User talk:Lefkos 79

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nicosia, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Nicosia was changed by Lefkos 79 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.861419 on 2011-07-15T06:08:57+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giorgoos for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nicosia, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nicosia. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:11, 15 July 2011 (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).

Lefkos 79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hello. the information on Nicosia is largely inaccurate. there's a lot of misinformation going on and the page needs a lot more attention (better pictures, historical facts, information on what's legal and what not). currently there's a group of users that keep blocking the complete opposite opinion. i believe that Wikipedia follows the democratic process of discussion and concent. i need to present some evidence in the discussion page of Nicosia to support my case. i don't even know Giorgoos or the other people that were making the same edits and I didn't even see their edits before I did mine. the fact is that we all have the same arguments against the current content of the page and you cannot suppress discussion. the TRNC is a false-state by law and its flag should be displayed in the Nicosia page as its violating international law. I agree that things need to be discussed before we make changes - i admit i'm new to wikipedia so I'm still learning. However I would like to be unblocked to be able to discuss these with other users. Thanks.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2011 (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.

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).

Lefkos 79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i admit i dont understand your logic. what am i being blocked for and what is exactly the reason for rejecting my request (there's too many "or"s in your reply)? all i want is to discuss with other people and find some ground for consensus in a highly controversial political issue but I'm being blocked because I want to discuss? congratulations for having an "open" encyclopedia

Decline reason:

You may well not be Giorgoos. However, whether you are or not, your editing has been highly contentious, designed to promote a particular point of view, and you have repeatedly tried to suppress information which is not in line with your point of view. Contrary to your claim to wish to achieve consensus, until you were blocked you never made any attempt at all to discuss the controversial changes you were making, and never responded to talk page messages. The way you have edited is not the way Wikipedia works. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2011 (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.

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).

Lefkos 79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Right! Thats perfect. You just proved that discussion doens't work for wikipedia. I say I want to discuss but you don't let me because I didn't discuss before! Fascisism and propaganda is the way forward for you guys! Well done! Just block anyone who has an opposite opinion from ever talking again. As far as discussions I never received any discussions on my talk page. I did however talk about my edits on that page. All I received was reverts on my edits and un-based accusations for being a sockpuppet - which you can check whether its true or not. Instead you just choose to ban me from ever discussing again. Is that the way to promote integrity? You are simply blind if you can't see that the admin of this page is propagandising and how many people want to have this changed! Unless you believe the whole world is wrong and Turkey is right. Do you guys have even the slightest respect for international law?

Decline reason:

Throwing about accusations will not get your block lifted early. I suggest you read our guide to unblocking and try again. Please note- continuing to accuse other editors of wrongdoing will lead to a removal of your ability to edit this page. TN X Man 14:38, 18 July 2011 (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.

You were blocked for using multiple accounts. Before this block you were edit warring in the Nicosia article on what appear to be politically-motivated grounds (as demonstrated by this edit's edit summary). This is a continuation of your conduct under the other account. You're going to need to address both issues to be unblocked, and please use User talk:Giorgoos to do so. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1)Regarding the allegation of using multiple accounts, how exactly do you want me to use User talk:Giorgoos to ask you to unblock me? How can i proove to you that I'm not that person as that user however we have similar opinions. Is it not allowed to have similar opinions with other? You can check the IPs of myself and Giorgoos if you want. It currently appears that its the admins of Nicosia against a number of different users (Neo ^, SineBot, Newyork5) who strongly disagree with the content of this page. However I still want to contribute to enriching the Nicosia page as its really poor. I understand its a controversial issue and I'm willing to find consensus. But it needs to be discussed thoroughly. Blocking the opposite opinion doesn't seem the right thing to do in this case.

2)Unfortunately the situation is highly political and wikipedia must not simply ignore that. It is a political fact that Cyprus and Nicosia are under military occupation by the Turkish army since 1974 and it is also a political and legal fact that TRNC is an illegal entity. The specific changes you referenced here are not political but simply facts that the world ought to know. Not mentioning these facts is simply covering the truth.