User talk:Neo ^

Hello Neo ^ ! Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thanks you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit, under certain guidelines and principles that all users must try and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.	Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.	Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.	How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.	Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.	Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance	Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
This is your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you must put your signature by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing the button above the editor when you are in edit mode, shown here Do not sign in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted. If you have any questions, or need any help, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Chaosdruid (talk · contribs · email)

Aradippou

Hi, what made you decide that the correct spelling for Aradippou was Aradhippou with an 'h'? The official website of the municipality spells itself without the 'h'. See here: [1] StephP (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official page is wrong. The correct way is Aradhippou, because it is the traditional way of transliteration. Plus, it needs an h because Aradhippou is pronounced like th in "there", not like d in "don't".

Nicosia

Hi. You seem to be more knowledgable than me with Wikipedia editing. Could you help with the Nicosia article? I made an edit request to change some stuff and I'd like to see your opinion in the Discussion page if you can. To avoid being blocked by making 'controversial' edits in the page, I tried opening a discussion last week but no-one replied. There are so many people that try to make changes and the admins keep reverting the changes and simply ignoring the legal facts. This has to be reported and a proper discussion should take place at a discussion board. At the moment the admins are referencing NPOV discussions and claiming that consensus has already been achieved. It clearly hasn't. We should all help to get the contents of the page right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I doubt that I am know more than you on Wikipedia editing. But I do agree on your opinion, see the talk section of Nicosia Neo ^ (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comment Neo. I have now made the change. If there is anything else you want to add please feel free to make the change. The article generally needs lots of improvement. Masri145 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages without discussion

It is not normally good practice to move pages like that. I will revert it if possible as I do not agree that it is correct to do so.

You have not opened discussion, as far as I can see, and have just decided to do it of your own volition. Can you please provide some evidence that this is the most common English spelling of the name? Thanks. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you revert all your changes from Troodos -> Troödos, (except any that say in the article "Its Turkish/Greek/Local name is Troödos").

It seems pretty obvious that, as there are over 1 million search results for Troodos and only 25,000 for Troödos, the correct most common English spelling is Troodos. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to understand that the "correct" spelling is not always the most common English name, and so cannot be used. This is done because of WP:COMMONNAME - you can see other examples of this in articles such as Kiev Talk:Kiev/naming, where the official transliterated name "Kyiv" cannot be used due to the common name rule.

I appreciate this may seem strange, but it is something that can only be solved by WP:CONSENSUS for a change to the policy, or by and exception. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THe correct spelling in English is Troödos. All the proper books mention it this way. It has to do with how it is pronounced.Neo ^ (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, the point is not the "correct" spelling but the most common name used in English. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Armenians in Cyprus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to English, Greek, Armenian and Turkish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. When you recently edited Armenians in Cyprus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vartkes Mahdessian

The article Vartkes Mahdessian has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Theroadislong (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Armenians in Cyprus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xeros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. When you recently edited Armenians in Cyprus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tarsus, Genoese and Sis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please check WP:REDLINK. In short, red links are an integral part of how WP works... Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, apologies on using Twinkle and labelling your edit a vandalism, it was not intentional. I had a slight browser malfunction there. Constantine ✍ 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Γειά σου!

Θα ήθελα σε παρακαλώ αν γίνεται να αναβαθμίσουμε μαζί την σελίδα Armenia - Cyprus relations που συνδέεται με τον ιστότοπο Foreign Relations of Armenia, ή/και Foreign relations of Cyprus. Οι σχέσεις Αρμενίας- Κύπρου είναι αδελφικές και αυτό πρέπει να δείχνεται και στην Βικιπαιδεία. Φαίνεται έχεις τρομερές γνώσεις για τις σχέσεις Αρμενίας Κύπρου και σε καλώ να συνεισφέρεις αγαπητή φίλη. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findblogging (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Σε ευχαριστώ για το μήνυμά σου. Φίλος είμαι και ευχαριστώ για τα κομπλιμέντα σου. Αλλά δεν γνωρίζω πολλά για τις σχέσεις Αρμενίας-Κύπρου, γνωρίζω για την αρμενοκυπριακή κοινότητα. Πώς μπορώ να βοηθήσω;Neo ^ (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Neo ^, welcome back! Its been a while. There are still a lot of Cyprus articles that need your help, so feel free to check them out (see Morphou, Kyrenia, Famagusta). Thanks! Masri145 (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Neo ^. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armenians in Cyprus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troodos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bedros IV of Cilicia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 6 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenian monuments in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of Western Armenian spellings.

Dear Neo, you edited Larnaca's and other page with my contribution of the Armenian names of Cypriot cities. Kindky note that until now no cypriot Armenian had even contributed such important notes on names of Cypriot cities. I trust you approciate it. Western Armenian is not an official language on Wikipedia in comparison to Eastern Armenian, therefore your remark can not be considered as a politically correct argument. I don't mind how it is typed, but I hope there will be more contributions like this from local Armenians and other proud user of the Ottoman Armenian dialect. Let's not compete on who and how, the important thing is to awake social knowledge of the link of Cyprus with Hisoric and modern Armenia. You didn't like it when I edited Armenians in Cyprus - then deserve some respect by not doing the same to others who try by small contributions to create social enlightenment.

Thank you for your message. According to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Western Armenian is a minority language of Cyprus. In fact, I am not an Armenian-Cypriot, but I am a researcher of the community. However, I do speak some Armenian. Larnaca has been Լառնագա for over a century, this is the way it was referred to by the refugees of the Hamidian massacres, the Adana massacres and the Genocide. This is how it's written on their graves at the Armenian cemetery of Larnaca. This is the way the Armenian Prelature of Cyprus writes it, and this is how it's written by the Armenian Schools' Committee of Cyprus. The same goes for Ֆամակուսթա. You will find those spellings in books like Կիպրոս Կղզի (1903), Հայ Կիպրոս (1936) and Յիշատակարան Կիպրահայ Գաղութի (1955), not to mention the correspondence between the Catholicosate and the local Church. Please respect it.

As for the hyphens and dashes and all their variations, I see no point in editing it, but I can also respect that.Neo ^ (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we can provide accurate awareness then we are on the same track. I am delighted to know that you, as a non armenian contribute your knowledge to our nation and our link to Cyprus.

Շնորհակալ եմ Neo ^ (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* '''Armenophony Association''' [Հայախօս Միութիւն (Hayakhos Mioutiun, [[Larnaca]]: 1923–1929]. This association was established by Manuel Kassouni, a
National Educational Orphanage (1897–1904) and printed, amongst others, the famous “Կիպրոս Կղզի” [Gibros Geghzi ((Island of Cyprus): 1903); the book is the first out of many books dealing with the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* '''Armenophony Association''' [Հայախօս Միութիւն (Hayakhos Mioutiun, [[Larnaca]]: 1923–1929]. This association was established by Manuel Kassouni, a
National Educational Orphanage (1897–1904) and printed, amongst others, the famous “Կիպրոս Կղզի” [Gibros Geghzi ((Island of Cyprus): 1903); the book is the first out of many books dealing with the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

National Educational Orphanage (1897–1904) and printed, amongst others, the famous “Կիպրոս Կղզի” [[Gibros Geghzi) Island of Cyprus]: 1903); the book is the first out of many books dealing with the history of the Armenian-Cypriot
* '''Dr. Vartkes Kassouni (1932-''', a long-serving minister of the [[Armenian Evangelical Church]] (1957–present) who lives

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Pococke]] mentions “very few Armenians, yet they have possession of an ancient church [in Nicosia]]”, while for the island as a whole he makes mention to “a small number of Armenians, who are very
and printed, amongst others, the famous “Կիպրոս Կղզի” [(Gibros Geghzi) Island of Cyprus]: 1903); the book is the first out of many books dealing with the history of the Armenian-Cypriot

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armenians in Cyprus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenian monuments in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(1972–1989). The monument’s design and drawing was done by student Sarkis Tossounian. The design (two hands clamping (like arm wrestling) as unity for all the scouts in and around Cyprus. It was

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(1897–1904) and printed, amongst others, “Կիպրոս Կղզի” [(Gibros Geghzi) Island of Cyprus]: 1903]; the book is the first of many books dealing with the history of the Armenian-Cypriot community.
'''' (''Temagan Joghov''), consisting of the Prelate, two priests and twelve elected lay persons)] and the '''Administrative Council''' ['''''Վարչական Ժողով''''' (''Varchagan Joghov''), consisting

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(1897–1904) and printed, amongst others, “Կիպրոս Կղզի” [(Gibros Geghzi) Island of Cyprus]: 1903]; the book is the first of many books dealing with the history of the Armenian-Cypriot community.
|Prodhromos]] (1938-1942), [[Nicosia]] (1900-1905) and [[Larnaca]] 1896-1899, 1916-1918, 1921-1936). During the World War II evacuation (1941–1942), Armenian schools operated in the villages of [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armenians in Cyprus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

] (Chairman of the Armenian National Delegation) and French military and political authorities (represented by diplomat François Georges-Picot, the Eastern Legion (Légion d'Orient/Արեւելեան
which remained in Cyprus, was assigned the defence of [[Kastelorizo|Castellorizo]] island (to the east of [[Rhodes]] and [[Arwad|Ruad]] island (near [[Syria]]). The 3rd battalion, together

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armenian monuments in Cyprus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trellis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Armenians in Cyprus. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 16 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

After discussing with some users, I added what was discussed, in the minimum length it could. Then they reverted it back, without even viewing the changes. This is unfair Neo ^ (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Multiple editors reverting your changes is a good indication that you lack the consensus for your edits. Repeatedly reverting to your preferred version is not a good solution; please return to the article's talk page to find a solution when your block expires.. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2013 (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.

Edit Warring

Your recent editing history at Armenians in Cyprus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Canterbury Tail talk 16:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I only made some changes, not in the disputed areas anyway. It seems that some users want me to stop editing everything related to the article, this is unfair... Neo ^ (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. You will need to address that in your unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:25, 18 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

As you will see from above, I made some changes, not in the disputed areas, and my changes were reverted wholly, so I re-reverted them (edit warring). The thing is, though, that it seems that some users want me to stop editing/contributing to this article for good... Neo ^ (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The issue here is that you were edit warring. It's immaterial whether your edits were "good" or not, edit warring is disruptive and this is what you got blocked for. Other editors clearly disagree that your edits were "good" and this is what resulted in the edit war. Until you address the edit warring issue, rather than insisting your right, you won't be unblocked. Dpmuk (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Oh please, don't be so pedantic semi-retired administrator. What do you mean address the issue? I have addressed it. Apparently, every time I add something it gets deleted, if I persist and try to ask why it gets deleted I get blocked... Go figure. Neo ^ (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You still appear to be unable to understand what was wrong with your edit-warring and what it means to engage in collaborative editing and respect consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 18 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

You may be right, I don't understand it. Please try to explain it to me, IN PLAIN TERMS and without giving me Wikipedia rules' pages or any other links. Personalise the specific situation at hand for me. Explain to me this: if I want to add something, why does it always gets removed? How can I reach a consensus when I add something and the others delete it and then I get blocked? Are the other users blocked as well, or is this just for me? This looks like some certain people, who appeared out of the blue, have hijacked the article and will not accept anything I add. Also, as a result of your block, I have been deprived the ability to speak in the arbitration pages, which is very one-sided. But then again, what a nice way to impose your own personal opinion: by abusing your power! I am going out now and I will be awaiting for your answers later on... Neo ^ (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you don't understand it now, you never will, and it's likely that this will happen no matter what you edit. So, with four requests that demonstrate beyond all doubt that you do not get what you need to get, you are just wasting our time. Therefore, I'm revoking your access to this talk page for the duration of the block. Any further unblock requests will have to be made through OTRS. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (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.

.

Image uploading

Hello there. A quick question, given your username, but do you load images to Commons under the username NeoCy? Just curious as I notice most of the images in the Armenian articles were uploaded by this user and you are a frequent editor of those articles. Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About 8 of the images have been deleted recently as being copyright violations. Taken from newspapers and magazines, off all rights reserved Flickr sites, pulled from the UN site etc. Looking at the account history several previous images have also been deleted as copyright violations or for incorrect licensing so they'll all need looking at. Since they're all marked as Own Work and most images are from before the birth of Neo ^ it seems likely they've been taken from archival images (libraries etc) without proper attributions. Many of them are well within copyright limitations and as a result belong to the person who took them and we can't use them without proper permission as they come under EU copyright laws. Canterbury Tail talk 03:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring at Armenians in Cyprus. As soon as you were unblocked you went straight back and re-inserted the contentious material. You seem not to get what editing by consensus or edit warring mean. I suggest you go and find out as you're quickly heading towards an indefinite block. All the links you need to undertsand them are given above and it's not very much to read. If you have questions once you've read them that's fine but don't just expect us to explain them, you need to have read them first. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dpmuk (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I cannot believe this tyranny! One week? I did not re-insert all the material, I merely made some corrections and then I added only a small portion, which was to clarify some points. This is completely unfair. And why is it that everyone has conspired against me? Neo ^ (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You quite clearly were edit warring, yet again. Repeatedly reverting to your preferred version, whether in whole or in part, is considered edit warring, and you've shown no awareness in this appeal of either our edit warring policy or of the fact that your behavior was disruptive to the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether you feel that your edits are "right" or "true"; we work on consensus, not brute force. I strongly suggest that you remove yourself from editing Armenians in Cyprus entirely when your block is lifted or expires; you don't seem to be able to restrain yourself from going to war on it, and the blocks are only going to keep getting longer if you keep edit warring. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2013 (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.

If someone is edit warring, you should suggest that they stop edit warring, not that they stop editing. — Lfdder (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say being advised of our edit warring policy and blocked repeatedly for violating it served as a very strong suggestion that Neo stop edit warring; since the problem continues and he doesn't seem to entirely understand how to stop that behavior, the next-best option for him is to just avoid editing the article that is his "problem spot". If he doesn't edit it, he won't get in trouble for edit warring over it, and he still has the article's talk page available to him to pursue consensus for changes he wants to see in it. Past evidence would indicate that if he returns to editing the article itself, he will very quickly return to edit warring on it as well. Now, I could be wrong; Neo could return from this block and completely, 100% understand the edit warring policy and never again get in the slightest bit of trouble, but my best advice to him at the moment is that if he doesn't understand why these blocks keeps happening, he won't be able to understand how to avoid the behavior that is leading to them, and therefore his best bet to avoid future blocks is to just not edit the article he seems to keep running into trouble on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is entirely unfair and unjust and I will not stand it. What do you mean remove myself from editing it entirely? There are some mistakes, some changes need to be made and - at any rate - where is fairness and democracy? Some people appeared out of the blue and have taken over the article. This is not right...

Decline reason:

By "remove yourself from editing it entirely" what is meant is exactly what is said: stop editing the article. There might or might not be mistakes or changes needed, but Wikipedia will not collapse if you are not the one to make them. Wikipedia is not a democracy; also "some people" are irrelevant to your being unblocked. The above makes it clear you still do not understand why you were blocked and does not provide any indication that you will not immediately resume the behavior that led to the block if you were unblocked, so your unblock request is declined. I strongly suggest that you read WP:GAB before making any further unblock requests, and that you give a thorough read to WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS while you are blocked, as if you resume the behavior that led to these blocks upon the expiration of this one, your next block is likely to be much longer. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 23 September 2013 (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 might consider reading WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and possibly WP:FREESPEECH, not that I'm necessarily saying it applies to you, but worth a read nonetheless. Blackmane (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Indefinitely... that is a long time... All I did was correct some mistakes and balanced the article, because the person who previously removed part of the section was not aware he had turned it into an unbalanced article. Also, being blocked suits some people who want to see me silent, especially since I won't be able to participate in the Wikipedia dispute resolution topic that is ongoing... It is my understanding that certain individuals no longer want to see me edit the article. For this reason, I did not insert any new text, I merely corrected 7 mistakes and then re-inserted some of the deleted text, in order to make it balanced in terms of the clubs (as the article, then, made mention to only one of the various clubs). Is this abuse? You tell me... I don't want to be indefinitely blocked, but I also want to be told what to avoid and, mainly, why. Please respond using your own words, not Wikipedia policy pages Neo ^ (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What part of "avoid the article" did you not get? Additionally, unblock requests that constitute attacks on those you view as opponents will not be acted upon. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2013 (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.

Also, because I just saw it, "This s--- is getting old"? First of all, if you want to say shit, say it shit, not s---. And second, this is not shit. Neo ^ (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it has any bearing on your unblock request, which I'm getting less and less likely to support, but I used that because while generally we avoid the use of profanity in our administrative discussions, there was no other word to describe what you have inflicted on us in the person of yourself. I'm not particularly proud I had to use it in this context, so it was splitting the difference. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

OK then... Unblock me and I will leave the article alone. However, what about the small mistakes?. Attacks? No, I am sorry, I only described the events... Neo ^ (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See reasons at the very bottom of the page Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous blocking admins, personally I'd be inclined to deny this request. Although they have promised to stay away from the article in question I see nothing here that suggests to me that they won't just go and make the same mistakes on another article. Until they show some understanding of our edit-warring policy and what they should do instead I feel an unblock would be unwise. I am also a little concerned about their "not wikipedia policy pages" attitudes - users should be willing to go and read our policies when they're pointed out to them. It's not other user's job to explain them to them and I'd fear that if they ever have any problems in another area they once again won't bother reading the policies they've been pointed out and so repeat the disruptive behaviour. I have no problems with users asking questions once they've read a policy but I don't think it unreasonable to expect them to have read them and tried to have understood them first. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo; would you be willing to accept an indefinite 0RR restriction and a topic ban from all Armenian related articles as conditions of an unblock? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the problem is with this article and this article alone, not all Armenian-related articles. Also: I am asking again: OK, I stop editing the article. What if there is a mistake (I've spotted 6 or 7 of them). Then what? It's one thing not to add information and another to leave incorrect information. Explain please... Neo ^ (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the issue here. It's not the article itself that's the problem. It's your behaviour at that article and it was hoped that by staying away from this article you'd avoid that behaviour - although your comments here make it seem like that's not the case. You also seem to be missing the fundamental point that while you consider an edit a correction of an error someone else might consider your "correction" to be the error. This then causes the back and forth edit warring which has been the problem. Please do go and read, and understand, WP:EW. I'm happy to try and explain anything you don't understand but I'm not about to start from scratch in trying to explain the policy. I have no idea why you so adamantly refuse to read our policy pages. If there is a good reason you can't read them please explain that reason. Dpmuk (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear. I am okay with not editing the article, however a) there are 6-7 small mistakes that need to be corrected and b) with regard to social life, the article is unbalanced in that it includes only AYMA and three of its associated organisations, while it should include all existing clubs. Find a way to include them and correct the mistakes and, if you unblock me, I promise to leave the article alone. Neo ^ (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not really in any position to "negotiate" The options on the table are 1) for you to say "I will not edit the article" and be able to edit in other areas. 2) not edit at all.

Do you wish to take 1) or 2)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously 1). But who can help out with correcting the mistakes and balancing the article in term of the clubs? It is not my personal whim, it is an objective question... I would happily co-operate with one of the administrators to point out the mistakes and the lack of balance, so that they do it... Neo ^ (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to provide a balanced view. Neither are we here to provide a directory of all clubs and societies. Not everything is notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. A club with a membership measured most likely in the dozens is generally not notable (considering the population is only around 3.5k.) Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. By definition, an encyclopaedia should provide a balanced view. At any rate, we are talking about 5-6 more clubs. You cannot have one and not the others. Why are you being so negative? Neo ^ (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, what I am seeing from you is an agreement "I will not edit the article. Unless I see something that I think needs to be changed and I cannot help myself from fixing it." I am not sure that that bodes well for you to actually follow option 1) which does not have an "unless" clause in it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I did not say that. I am agreeing to stop editing the article, however I am also asking what about the 6-7 mistakes I've spotted and the issue of the clubs. Neo ^ (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance and advice

Hey Neo ^. I know some of us have gotten off to a bad start here so I'm wondering if I can help you. You're obviously an expert on the Armenian community in Cyprus, I've read your booklet that you were referencing on some articles. People aren't come here to block you and to criticise what you do in order to demonise you, that's not the case, it's more that your edits are acting contrary to Wikipedia's policies and rules (which I admit can be labyrinthine at times.) Just as you are an expert in the Armenian community in Cyprus the people talking on your talk page and on the article pages are experts in how Wikipedia works and what is and isn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm hoping there is a middle ground here, but you'll need to listen to the other users when they say that some of this detail and lists of all clubs etc just aren't appropriate on Wikipedia. You have the knowledge to be a very helpful contributor but you will need to learn more about how Wikipedia operates. I know you feel like people have suddenly descended on your work after several years of the articles you edit being ignored by the wider community, but there is nothing personal going on here.

For the record I don't believe you should be blocked indefinitely or completely blocked from editing the Armenians in Cyprus article, but you will need to learn what is suitable for Wikipedia and what is not. I'm willing to offer myself up as a mentor if desired or requested in order to help you out in this area, but you should also listen to the other editors on this page and others who know how Wikipedia works. Let me know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening and I am willing to comply. I am only saying that, just as we included AYMA (one of the clubs), we should also include the AGBU, the Armenian Club, LHEM, Nor Serount and the Armenian-Cypriot Progressive Movement. The AGBU is about 10 lines long (because it is in all three cities), while the others are about 3 lines each. It is important to have them here. Neo ^ (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these clubs notable? Wikipedia isn't a directory, there is no obligation to be all inclusive. What is it about these clubs that makes them notable enough to have information written about them in a international encyclopaedia? This article isn't for Armenians in Cyprus, it's for everyone else in the world and some things are not notable. I'm guessing from the population stats that these clubs are all small with not very large memberships, so why are they important not to the community but to everyone else? They need to meet the notability requirements stated under WP:ORG to be included. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have no knowledge of this community. First of all, as a matter or principle, you cannot mention only one club and not the others. Second, clubs for a small community are important because they are the social centre of that community. What is the problem with including these clubs? All of them are notable. AYMA is in Nicosia, AGBU is in the three cities, Armenian Club is in Larnaca, LHEM in Limassol. Nor Serount and the Armenian-Cypriot Progressive Movement are not so important, okay, but the others are. Neo ^ (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does not bode well for you when you are so dismissive of someone who has offered to mentor you as a method for you to return to editing. They are the person with experience and understanding of Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I promised not to edit the article. I am asking though about these issues. I am not being dismissive, I only want to find out what happens with these issues, regardless of my editing status (or lack thereof).Neo ^ (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You obviously have no knowledge of this community" sounds pretty dismissive to me.

The fact that the rest of your comments are entirely focused upon the one article in all of Wikipedia's 4,300,000 plus articles that you have been told you cannot edit if you want to come back; seems to denote an obsession with that subject that will prevent you from keeping any promise that you might make to stay away from there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, if this isn't clear from what I said before. I have already agreed to "stay away" from this article. I am only asking about this matter, which is entirely irrelevant from my editing status. Even if I am able to edit and even if I am not able to edit, the issue remains, that is why I asked this. Please let me know. Neo ^ (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone... Have you forgotten me? Neo ^ (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness' sake Neo do I have to point out the already obvious? You CANNOT EDIT the article in question REGARDLESS of any excuse you may find. You CANNOT "correct mistakes" on the article, you cannot "un-bias" the article, you cannot do ANYTHING to the article. Does that answer your question? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone has not been able to understand what I said. I have promised not to edit the article. However, I am asking - independently of my editing status - what will happen to the mistakes. Perhaps someone else can correct them, following my pointing it out to them. I think this is crystal clear. Neo ^ (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you: The mistakes will STAY UNCORRECTED as you are NOT to edit the article and if you notice a mistake and it is not corrected by someone else then you are not to correct it! If you ask another editor and they do not correct it then you are NOT to correct it! Is that clear enough for you! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is obviously clear. I have been demonized, that's it. However, I will not lose the forest for the sake of a tree. I won't edit it, if you could point me to an editor who can correct them please.Neo ^ (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If/when you're unblocked then you can note your concerns on the relevant talk page. If the points are valid and fully explained with rationales then you could well find support from others. If not, then the discussion could be publicised more widely via WikiProjects or an RfC. In all cases, try to avoid being too emotive and word your notifications in a neutral manner, in order to ensure that you're not canvassing for !votes. I'd be a little surprised to see you getting an answer/assurance here and now that others will carry out the edits that you're requesting. I hope this helps. -- Trevj (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Neo ^ (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What mistakes are there on the article? Note not including all the clubs is not a mistake, it is a deliberate editing decision under the grounds of Wikipedia guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenians_in_Cyprus&diff=574969993&oldid=574368339 (except Manuel Kassouni, he needs to stay in the 19th century). Having promised what I have, can I please be unblocked? Neo ^ (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten me? Neo ^ (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to try another {{unblock}} request. Or someone can drop a talkback notice on Canterbury Tail's talk page if you like. -- Trevj (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do... Neo ^ (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Trevj (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Nyttend and Daniel Case on their talk pages, since they are the ones mentioned in the pending unblock request. Ish dar ian 10:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Neo ^ (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

As discussed above, I kindly request to be unblocked and I promise not to edit the article... Neo ^ (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - you already have an open unblock request on hold by Nyttend (talk · contribs) above. I've pinged them for further review. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:56, 18 October 2013 (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.

Sorry for suggesting another request would be a good idea. I didn't notice the most recent one was on hold. -- Trevj (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've overlooked something or forgotten something, the blocking administrator (Daniel Case) hasn't offered input. If one more day passes without any input from him, I'll take the previous request "off hold" and either unblock you or decline your request. If you find that more than a day has passed, or if you find input from Daniel on this question, feel free to let me know (with a link if you find input from Daniel). You can do this by mentioning me here (just write a chunk of text with a link to my username), or you can place the following code somewhere: {{helpme}} Please ask Nyttend to come back to my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really think I should be unblocked, since I have stated that I will comply with the request... Neo ^ (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Daniel Case

From the above, I think Neo^ can keep his word if he is allowed to present the mistakes he feels need to be corrected on the relevant talk page and does not edit the article itself. One of us can make the corrections or tag the article itself if we don't feel up to it. Is he willing to agree to this? Do we feel we understand him? Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I've decided to unblock you, based on all that's been said here (and elsewhere, but more importantly here) by Daniel Case and others, and based on your conversation up above with Trevj. First off, let me give you my deep apology for making you wait a full month before acting on your request. This was never what I planned to do: it was forgetfulness, and I know that I shouldn't have forgotten about you — we don't do this kind of thing to hardened vandals, let alone to people like you who aren't blocked for bad-faith edits.

With this being said, let me remind you that you're not completely free to edit whatever pages you want. You're "informally" banned from editing the Armenians in Cyprus article, but not its talk page. Let me spell out what this means:

You may make no edits to the article whatsoever, even spelling fixes or vandalism reversion
You're free to edit the talk page just like any other talk page, as well as asking others to edit the article, whether by making requests at the talk page or making requests anywhere else
If you feel like asking me to make edits for you, let me know and I'll try to help. You'll have to remember that I'm not familiar with the subject (basically all I know about Armenians in Cyprus is that my church had some missions to Armenians in Nicosia, Larnaca, and Limassol for much of the 20th century), so I'll probably wait for other people's opinions before making big edits
By "informal ban", I mean that I plan to re-block you if you make any edits to the article whatsoever. Perhaps you know that banned editors may freely be reverted, their contributions deleted, etc., but that's basically for people whom we don't want around at all. You're not formally banned, so those provisions don't apply to you — your edits should be treated like edits by anyone else.
If you edit the article, you should expect to be reblocked. When someone is blocked indefinitely for something, agrees to conditions for an unblock, and returns to the original behavior, it's always far harder to get unblocked a second time, so a reblock is likely to stand for a much longer period of time.
Essentially, you should treat the Armenians in Cyprus article as if it were protected: you're unable to edit it, but you can edit the talk page freely, and you can ask others to edit the page.

Finally, let me suggest that you be very careful with, or stay away from, articles that are related to the subject of Armenians in Cyprus. This isn't any "obey me or you'll be in trouble" warning; I'm simply saying that people are more likely to reject your edits and/or see them as disruptive when you're editing in this field, so you might have an easier time if you do less editing in this subject and/or make your edits on articles that are less closely related to the subject, e.g. the American Academy of Larnaca, which (according to my university roommate who attended there) has had some Armenian students in the past. Feel free to edit this page and others: just please be careful about making edits that others might see as controversial. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, I must ask something. Other than the mistakes I pointed out at some point above, there are also changes, possible minor corrections etc. Why am I banned "for life" from editing them? Isn't this unfair? Also, I have pointed the mistakes, but no one seems to have corrected them... Neo ^ (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the discussion up above, others disagree with the idea that they're mistakes. Please discuss this with the users in question, or start a discussion at the article's talk to urge that they be changed. Meanwhile, the banned-for-life bit: you're essentially on an indefinite parole. Just like an indefinite block, this isn't for life — it's a condition of your unblock, and you lose the restriction just like you lose the unblock. Either you can edit productively to the point that I'm convinced that you won't have problems editing the article, or you can ask the community for input at WP:AN. I would strongly suggest that you not do the latter in the near future, since you may remember that some people believed that you shouldn't be unblocked in the first place; you're unlikely to have your request granted, and a failed request is worse than no request at all. Finally, regarding your email: I don't have any published primary sources. My knowledge is a mix of talking with elderly people who were missionary children (for example, I know the daughter of Wilbur W. Weir of Larnaca, if you know that name), occasional appearances of Armenians in conversations with friends who live there now or have recently (connected with this church one way or another), and awareness of Cyprus-related documentation in official church documents, which can be downloaded freely from this page. A few Armenian congregations were established, but due to doctrinal differences they separated from my church in 1961; I know nothing whatsoever about them after that time, and you're unlikely to find anything relevant in that page's documents from 1962 or later. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, give me a day or two to point out the mistakes (which are factual, believe me). Regarding the clubs, there was a discussion before, but the point still remains. Wikipedia currently presents only one club (out of the 5) and only some of its satellites.Neo ^ (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neo ^. You have new messages at Ishdarian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ish dar ian 07:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

This is a restoration of the previous block, imposed because you cannot be trusted to heed the unblock conditions. You should not expect to be unblocked before the time expires. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Things have gone out of hand here... I added a few commas, because I noticed they needed to be there and I got blocked. If you cannot differentiate between "disruption" and meaningful editing, what can I say? Neo ^ (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

How many times do you think you can say, "I promise not to edit the article", and then proceed to edit the article? You were told to stay off the article. Period. It was your condition for being unblocked. You edited the article. You're blocked. Is this difficult to grasp? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:24, 7 December 2013 (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.

The conversation that used to lie here has now been removed by royal decree -- 'cause if anybody knows how to aggravate a situation, it's Nyttend. — Lfdder (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm Katieh5584. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Sourp Magar Monastery, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Katieh5584 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The main page should be Sourp Magar Monastery and Surp Magar Monastery should redirect to that. The spelling is simply wrong. It is Sourp (Saint), not Surp. Neo ^ (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:CGR ticket.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting sanctions

Hi Neo. I saw your message over at Talk:Armenians in Cyprus. That talk page isn't really the place to ask for sanctions to be removed. I'd suggest leaving a message on Nyttend's talk page, as he was the one who imposed the unblock conditions on you. One word of advice, though: you haven't really made any edits since you were unblocked. You should definitely make constructive edits in other areas of Wikipedia, since that will show you can be a benefit to the project without getting into a lot of conflicts. Ish dar ian 19:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to go over his head, because he will probably not lift the sanctions. Whom should I contact? Neo ^ (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going over his head is not the best idea. If you appeal to the community, they're going to ask if you discussed it with the admin who imposed the unblock conditions. Not discussing with Nyttend would not be favorable to your appeal. Besides, he's a very rational admin; I'm certain he'll hear your request in a fair manner. Also, the place to appeal would be WP:AN, but I suggest it not be your first stop. Ish dar ian 18:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

Before anything is lifted, would you please involve yourself in the article again? Remember that you can still edit the talk page freely; I'm basically asking you to make suggestions at the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What suggestions exactly? Neo ^ (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nyttend is refering to suggestions such as content that needs to be updated, punctuation that needs correcting. Stuff that you think should happen to the article. Ish dar ian 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are we beating around the bush? Neo ^ (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I made this same suggestion in the section above. In order for sanctions to be removed, you need to show that the behavior that led to those sanctions has ceased. This is the best way to prove that point. Ish dar ian 16:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you think that improvements can be made, whether typos that should be fixed, incorrect interpretations that need to be revised, junk that needs to be removed, or omissions that need to be filled. Help us make those improvements by discussing at the talk page: explain what needs to be fixed and what should be done, and be ready to explain your reasoning if they're not obvious things like typos. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I feel I shouldn't explain myself to you, because this sanction is irrational and I should be allowed to edit like any other user (again, I am the sole expert on the field, Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra google me), give me a few days and I will explain what needs to be changed. Neo ^ (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no field of genuinely encyclopedic interest in which there is only one expert. Also, most people who declare themselves to be experts are not. Expertise is something that others recognize in someone, not something that someone can fairly decide that he or she has. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google my name. When you've published the articles and booklets I have regarding the matter, you can be an expert too. Neo ^ (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very briefly, because I won't go into many details now. After May 2014, Archbishop Varoujan will no longer be the Prelate. Major additions need to be made in the organisations section, as this is not representative of the community as it is now. Also, slightly more information (about 2-3 lines more) needs to be added to the places of worship and education sections and, perhaps (but a few more lines) in the monuments section. Major additions need to made in the personalities section, as this list is very, very limited and there are many (mostly dead) people who are not included. Also, I need to add something to the timeline. As you understand, I will not explain every single addition here. Once you say the OK, I plan on starting to gradually make the changes. Neo ^ (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrenia

Neo^, Hi. While I am sure that we would agree that there were atrocities committed by both sides, I maintain that the text is non-neutral POV. Unless there were documented cases of ethic cleansing happening in Girne/Kyrenia, I would suggest that we go back to the original neutral phrasing. btw, I would also have objections if someone added text stating that the influx to the population was due to Greek raiding of villages in the south of the country. Best, --Ira Goldstein (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need proof for KYRENIA's ethnic cleansing? Just look at the number of the enclaved there... They were isolated at the Dome Hotel and when they had to go to the government-controlled section for their health they were not allowed to return back... Neo ^ (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo^, hi. Yes, they were in an enclave and were escorted out. That is appropriate to the article. However, it seems to me that the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" is non-neutral POV. Best, --Ira Goldstein (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do read about what the Turks did and are still doing over there (defacing churches, renaming villages, forcing enclaved and so on) and then you decide for yourself.

Topic ban violation

Hi Neo. I just peeked at my watch list and saw that you edited the Armenians in Cyprus article. I can't stress how important it is for you to abide by the ban, no matter how small or harmless the edit may seem. I strongly suggest you speak to Nyttend about a topic ban review, because pushing the boundaries of the ban may get you blocked again. Ish dar ian 22:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reblock is indeed warranted, but in all fairness, I had forgotten about the incident; it wouldn't be appropriate to reblock at this point, I think. Let's discuss this situation again. I'll wait for your response, Neo, before I say anything more. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to edit this article, after all this time. Ishdarian: you are just being pedantic. Look at what I edited. It is a fact, not a point of view. Stop this stupid "control". I will be editing more if there is need for facts. The article is NOT owned by anyone. Neo ^ (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the edit. If I had a problem with it then I would have reverted it. The problem is that you are topic banned from the article. You can't be editing it. That's not me exerting control; topic bans are part of policy. I still have the talk page of the article on my watchlist. You could have proposed the change on the talk page and someone would have taken a look and made the change.

Neo, I've read some of your works. You are far more educated about this field than I am. I don't want to see you go because I honestly believe you have brought a lot of information to this topic and you can bring so much more, but you need to be less combative and work within policy. I do not want to see you get blocked again. I would much rather help you work within policy than keep butting heads. Ish dar ian 05:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your kind words. Second, I WILL not be made a pawn, suggesting changes so that others make them. I will make my own changes and YOU will lift the ban. Simple as that. In the same way the ban was placed, it can be lifted. Neo ^ (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I alone cannot lift the ban. You need to prove that you can work in a collaborative environment before the TBAN can be lifted. The behavior that you're currently displaying does not help your case. Please, take some time to think about this. Show us that you are willing to work with us without being disruptive. Ish dar ian 05:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I show you this? I cannot be patronised by suggesting and edit and have others make it. I am perfectly capable of making changes on my own. And if you see the change I made, it is not disruptive. So, let me know how I can show "good" behaviour to you people, who have literally taken over the article I basically invested so much knowledge into... Neo ^ (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made IS disruptive because you are topic banned from editing that article. I agree that it is a positive edit, but you can't be doing that right now. Suggesting edits on the talk page is the exact way you can prove that you can work productively with others. By suggesting these edits in a calm manner backed with reliable sources, you can show that you are willing to abide by local policies. If someone disagrees with one of your proposed changes, you can engage them in discussion and try to achieve consensus, showing that you can engage others in discussion without losing your cool. These are the ways you can show your behavior has changed. Ish dar ian 05:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The edit I made ISN'T disruptive, because it is an absolute fact. Haven't you got the cool to see outside this box of rules you and others set? I am sorry, but I thought that Wikipedia is about giving correct, accurate and up-to-date information... But, in the future, if I want to make a change, I will suggest it, but after the discussion I will make it MYSELF, not others. How long will this go on for? Neo ^ (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be like this until the topic ban is lifted. If you continue to edit the article then you risk being blocked again. Your last block was three months. I don't want to see that happen again. Ish dar ian 06:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, you have good intentions, but you cannot - for the life of you - look and see outside this box of sets of rules. Until when will it be this? Until you are no longer banned... A vicious circle... I think this is abuse of power. Anyway, the next edits I will suggest, but not for long, this must be lifted soon. Very soon I will make a page about the new Archbishop, I don't think I need to get permission to link it to the article... And please, try to look outside the box. People have become so humanless, all they see is rules and regulations and no true inspiration. Food for thought... Neo ^ (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were unblocked with this ban in place. You accepted these conditions. If you had not, you would still be blocked. You were given another chance. Embrace it, don't buck at it. Without rules, the project would fall apart, and everyone's hard work would be for naught. Ish dar ian 06:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... for the time being. But when I make the link to Archbishop's Alemezian name I will link it. After that, I will discuss things.

Latin Cypriots

Please see here. 31.153.94.214 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Alexyflemming's talkpage

Hi Neo. Please follow the advice of Bbb23 because it is correct and proper. The other thing is when a user is blocked we don't go to their talkpage to comment negatively about them because it may be construed as grave-dancing. Finally, your strong opinions about TRNC are not neutral, so I don't think they are helpful, either for you or for the ideas you are trying to highlight. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo, I reverted your last comment from Alexy's talk page. If you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo, I suggest you follow Bbb23's advice and, hopefully, mine. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we serious? "If you persist, you risk being blocked"? Nice... so democratic...

Romanisation of Greek place names in Cyprus

Can you please stop sometimes moving pages to your favourite spelling, citing 'spelling', as if it's a correction? [2] As you might know, there's more than one transliteration scheme for Greek. If there's a particular one you think we should be using across the board, then you should bring it up at some venue or another and attempt to establish a naming convention. What you're doing now is making things inconsistent, and inconsistency is confusing. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to see this. Please keep in mind we have a guideline for this at WP:GREEK, which would indicate using the official international transcription system used by ELOT, ISO and the UN. Or is there some kind of offical local norm established in Cyprus that's different from this? (I note that the British geographical authorities had a different transcription scheme in the past, although they've changed to the ELOT system now, apparently.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cypriot government uses ELOT. [3], p. 27. I didn't realise we've already got a naming convention for Greek, thanks. Presumably, this should also apply to Cyprus? I mean, obviously, I'm not suggesting that we should move Larnaca or Paphos, but for obscure villages (which is most of them), we should stick to ELOT, per this guideline. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are all wrong. It is not MY favourite spelling, it is the correct spelling in English. The "romanisation" system does not apply for English. Neo ^ (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Except for some few well-known places, most Greek placenames don't have firmly conventionalized English forms. Romanization systems are for precisely that, rendering Greek placenames in an otherwise English context. If you believe that places like "Yerolakkos" or "Zodhia" have single, widely accepted English forms like that, the burden would be on you to demonstrate that this is the case. (Incidentally, given your prior history of uncollegial editing and bans, starting a reply with "you are all wrong" as if you alone had privileged access to a higher truth is not a very clever way of convincing your fellow contributors of your willingness to cooperate.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of you is from Cyprus, so you don't really know what you're talking about. There was a standardized (more or less) system until the 1980s in place. So, these names have a certain history. Uncollegial editing? No, dear, my editing is fine. Bans? Yes, some people - who have no idea about what is important or not - decided to take over the article I was editing. Neo ^ (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd follow my link above, you would discover the government's standard is ELOT (since the early 90's, if I'm not mistaken). In ELOT (sans diacritics), Ζώδεια would be Zodeia and Γερόλακκος Gerolakkos. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. Neo ^ (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, why is it wrong? 93.109.171.237 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.philology.uoc.gr/conferences/6thICGL/ebook/g/papapavlou.pdf Remind me again why you are using an IP address and not a nickname. The "standardization" was done arbitrarily and in many cases it changed the names themselves, their spelling and so on. As a result, place names are spelt and pronounced wrong (consider the unpronounceable Egkomi!). I haven't got the time to explain all these here, but if you read the article (and others criticizing the so-called "standardization") you will see there's something wrong with it... Neo ^ (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue the article highlights is with the 'Greekification' of dialectal place names, particularly those with sounds that do not occur in Standard Modern Greek. The government would alter the name in Greek before applying the ELOT transformation. On account of the fact that Cypriot Greek hasn't been codified, it has no standard orthography, and, therefore, no transliteration scheme, either. Nobody's suggested we use the Cypriot government's list of toponyms, and we can discuss how we are to transliterate those sounds that are unique to Cypriot Greek. However, the matter I wanted to bring to your attention is with representing the same Greek letters with different Latin ones; for example, we have Zodhia, and we've also got Polemidia. And much of this is your doing.

Also, if you'd kindly stop discriminating, I'd much appreciate it. What is my place of origin to you? Why do you care if I use my IP? 93.109.171.237 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding the the Pappavlou paper at [4] difficult to read at the moment, as for some weird technical reasons the fonts are displaying in a distorted way for me here, but from what I can gather, he is voicing some disagreement about the principles of transliteration chosen in the ELOT/UN system. That's fine, of course, but it doesn't address the question of whether these transcriptions are in fact widely applied. According to our Wikipedia policies, it doesn't matter which transcription system you or I or Mr Pappavlou would find linguistically appropriate or esthetically pleasing. What counts is what is the predominant usage in English; in the absence of a single, clearly predominating conventionalized form in current English usage, we resort to the official local norms as a default, and that, for better or worse, is the ELOT system now. I could see how a point might be made that, given Cyprus' British colonial past and the long-standing role of English on the island, the older British (PCGN 1962) norm [5] might still be so deeply entrenched that it might still dominate usage despite the new official policies, but this would require actual evidence, not just the fact that you or Mr Pappavlou don't like the new system. If I don't see such evidence, I'm going to move those pages back in a while, to get them back into consistency with others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, here's a sample of the latest few page moves of the kind we're talking about. It appears that the forms Neo has been favouring are indeed those that would have been used in the old PCBG system, except for some cases where he apparently favours a form that renders a pronunciation in local Cypriot Greek rather than the common Modern Greek standard.

Previous title	moved to	ELOT	PCGB 1962
Gerolakkos	Yerolakkos	Gerolakkos	Yerolakkos
Zodeia	Zodhia	Zodeia	Zodhia
Xylotymvou	Xylotymbou	Xylotymvou	Xilotimvou
Armenochori	Armenokhori	Armenochori	Armenochori
Deftera	Dheftera	Deftera	Dhevtera
Geri	Yeri	Geri	Yeri
Agioi Trimithias	Ayii Trimithias	Agioi Trimithias	Ayii Trimithias

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots more if you look at his move log. Some, like Kritou Terra and Kourtaka, are valid ELOT, but most arent. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I haven't got the time to deal with this issue. Second, there are dozens of maps which show the correct names, plus widespread use. It all comes down to how close the toponyms are to the original. Do what you want, but I am telling you, I am only trying to correct mistakes. Neo ^ (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that the PCGB-style transcriptions have been used widely in maps and other publications, given their previous endorsement by various national institutions; the question is just whether they still persist as the single most common form in current practice despite the changed official position. I can also sympathize with a personal preference for the PCGB style, given its greater proximity to the phonology, but that is of course beside the point, and I would ask you to stop acting as if the other forms that follow the current official standard are "mistakes" to be "corrected". They are clearly not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kritou Terra is used by every single person in Cyprus. Every single person. The same as Kourtaka. Neo ^ (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said Kritou Terra is ok. What do you mean it's used by every single person? 93.109.171.237 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what I mean. Every Cypriot who will refer to this village (by the way, my grandfather's mother was from this village) will use double r in Kritou Terra. Neo ^ (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that's not got much to do with what we're discussing here. First of all, you're confusing speech with writing. Lots of places in Cyprus aren't written the way they're pronounced. Secondly, ELOT doesn't modify digraphs to single letters. If we're transliterating 'Τέρρα', it'll be Terra in, I'd say, all known transliteration schemes for Greek. Thirdly, like Fut.Perf. said above, when there's no established spelling for it in English, we're just gonna have to transliterate the Greek name the way it's spelt officially (which happens to be Κρήτου Τέρρα). 93.109.171.237 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor

Hello! I have stumbled across some good edits you have made. I was, however, a bit surpriced that you had marked them as minor edits, when they certainly were not. Looking at your contributions list, I see that you mark all your edits as minor. This is a bit confusing when one, as I often do, scan the history of an article, and it is not how the minor marking is supposed to be used. Please read WP:Minor. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me examples? Neo ^ (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit where you add or remove content or any edit where you add comments to a talk page could serve as an example. But instead of giving examples, I just ask you to read the guideline. --T*U (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you give me examples of (non-minor) changes I marked as minor. If you wouldn't mind... Neo ^ (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two: [6], [7]. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation of "well known"

Your change to American Pie (song) is at odds with Wikipedia's Manual of Style; WP:HYPHEN states: "A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively ... but the floor was well polished." In this case ("The song is well known for ...") the participle is not used attributively; it is not joined directly to a modified noun without a linking verb. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 14:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps in American English, but in British English you should use a hyphen. If something is polished well, it's well-polished.

That's rubbish, I'm afraid. MHRA.org.uk style guide has "a well-known fact" ("well-known" is used attributively), but "the facts are well known". New Zealand English is not American English, and they don't use a hyphen, either. See this document, where they specify "the argument is well founded". Even if there were a definite tendency to use a hyphen in British English, Wikipedia does not use purely British English or purely American English. The MoS has been developed with an eye to commonality. I encourage you to go along with the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 01:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CGR ticket.jpg

Hi.

I'd like to use your photo of this ticket for an article on Polish Wikipedia. As it's currently uploaded to English Wikipedia it's not possible to do it. Could you move it to Commons? It looks like it's fine according to project rules - there is no Threshold of originality as it's just simple text. Thanks. Polish Wikipedia user: pbm (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.114.220 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I move it? Perhaps you could tell me or move it yourself? Neo ^ (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are couple of ways of doing it, but for single file the easiest way is just to upload it again here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload and choosing "Too simple to be copyrighted" in License field. pbm (talk) 94.175.114.220 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CGR_ticket.jpg Neo ^ (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! pbm (talk) 94.175.114.220 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor -- again

The guideline WP:Minor says specifically that "Adding or removing content in an article" or "Adding comments to a talk page or other discussion" is not to be marked as minor. None of your edits today or yesterday can therefore be considered minor. The guideline also states that "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette" and "if you are in doubt about whether an edit is minor or not, it is always safer not to mark it as minor". Please read WP:Minor and follow it. --T*U (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK! Neo ^ (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. new Turkish names of settlements in northern Cyprus

We know that Northern Cyprus is an illegal entity, but the information still is encyclopaedic. We're not endorsing its existence by reporting on it. Alakzi (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why not include the encyclopaedic reference to the name of Cyprus and Kyrenia in Armenian, which is a minority language? Neo ^ (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian is not an administrative language, nor is it especially historically relevant to any of these settlements. Alakzi (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian is a minority language, recognized by the Republic of Cyprus. If not to Kyrenia, it is at least historically relevant to Cyprus, as the presence of Armenians in Cyprus dates at least back to 578 AD, about 1000 years before the Turks came to the island... Neo ^ (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but not to the extent that I'd place it in the very first sentence of the article, elongating the parentheses, and pushing the predicate down. Alakzi (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is where the place names are. I think we should add at least the name for Kyrenia and Cyprus (you could not add the Republic of Cyprus, because that is administrative). What do you think? Neo ^ (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Kyrenia? To my (limited) knowledge, few Armenians ever lived there. Armenian would be most relevant to Nicosia and Larnaca. Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Kyrenia, Larnaca, Limassol, Famagusta, Nicosia and Paphos (and Morphou) are the major towns on the island... Neo ^ (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're not treating CoE charter minority languages as official. Alakzi (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian names

Hello, firstly thank you for your interest in improving content with regards to the Armenian heritage in Cyprus. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion above etc., is it possible that you also provide some sort of transliteration or pronunciation with the Armenian names, as is the case with the Greek names of major towns apart from Morphou or in Yerevan? That would add a lot of extra value and assist readers unfamiliar with the Armenian alphabet IMHO, thank you. --GGT (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bit difficult: I don't know how to use the phonetic alphabet that well... Neo ^ (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles where the Armenian name is relevant, would be Nicosia, Limassol and Larnaca, which are the three places mentioned (and sourced) in the main article about Armenians in Cyprus. Phonetics aside, if you are familiar with the Armenian alphabet, it would be very welcome with a transliteration, since the alphabet will be unknown for most people. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Famagusta and Paphos. Neo ^ (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a source (Mirbagheri 2010) stating that the Armenians are concentrated "mainly in Nicosia, Larnaca, and Limassol". We also have a table showing urban distribution of Armenians in 1960, showing the same three cities as the clearly most important. Famagusta had 152, Paphos 3. Given the historical connection, it might be relevant to give the Armenian name for Famagusta. Paphos is out of the question as wp:undue. To show good faith, I will revert myself on Famagusta.

Please consider my request for transliterations of the Armenian names for Nicosia, Larnaca, Limassol and Famagusta. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Famagusta sounds okay, thank you. With regard to the transliteration, give me some time. Neo ^ (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! And you will surely also please give a source for the 100-200 Armenians you claim are living in Paphos in the article "Armenians in Cyprus". When/If that is given, the Armenian name could also be given in the "Paphos" article. But not without such sourcing. --T*U (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can source one of my books: either the one published by the Kalaydjian Foundation in 2009 or the one published by the Press and Information Office (PIO) in 2012. Neo ^ (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table on page 22 in your book "The Armenians of Cyprus", there were 3 Armenians living in Paphos in 2001. The number is stated to be "not accurate", but it is still a far cry from 100-200. --T*U (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number 3 refers to Cypriot Armenians. The rest are mainly from Armenia, Georgia, Russia and the rest of Caucasus and Pontus. That is why there is a discrepancy. Trust me, I know what I am telling you. Stop acting like you've discovered Columbus' egg... I've been dealing with the community non-stop since 2008. If you go to page 17, you will see that about 5% of 3.500 lives in Paphos and some other villages. Neo ^ (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where Columbus entered the picture. I am just asking for a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia is based on. I am sure you know a lot about the matter (compared to me knowing very little). That should make it easy for you to present a source. --T*U (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, page 17 of the 2009 and page 16 of the 2012 book. It's all there... Neo ^ (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Varoujan Hergelian

The article Varoujan Hergelian has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am offended, because some smart-ass who knows everything thinks he or she can dictate what I should do. All the information in the article was received either from him directly (and personally, as I've known him since 2008), while some were taken from the Armenian Prelature of Cyprus. How do I source this? Neo ^ (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack and incivility

Please note that your edit summaries here, here and here constitute personal attacks and are very rudely put, constituting violations of WP:NPA and WP:Civility. This has unfortunately formed a pattern, as the edit summaries here and here, among others, are directly based upon the person making the edit and assume bad faith (purported editing in favor of a "pseudo-state", purported try to play down reality). Please note that any comment made on such an issue should focus on the content in question and not the user or his/her activities, and refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations of POV-pushing. If you truly believe that that is the case, you are welcome to report it, providing that you abide by the aforementioned policies. As per the articles in question, I kindly request that you explain your rationale for reverting in the talk pages in a civil manner, in light of policies such as WP:POV, and in one case, WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR. Please bear in mind that "Northern Cyprus" is the standard, neutral naming used here to refer to the entity in question. I understand that you may be feeling strongly about the dispute, but please cool down. --GGT (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand is that the international community has a consensus upon this issue, it is a pseudostate, unrecognized by the international community. Please stop supporting then and using euphemisms like 'in the north". It is the Turkish-occupied areas. PERIOD Neo ^ (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are making unsupported, personal assertions. As I said before, if you suspect that I am involved in disruptive editing and POV-pushing, you may report me providing full evidence. Otherwise, what you may think my actions are aimed at is irrelevant, and I request that you immediately cease making accusations of political motives about me, as comments must be about content, not editors.

Wikipedia is a collaborative website and it works by using consensus. Northern Cyprus is the name of the article determined by consensus, it is a neutral and sufficiently descriptive title, and is the common name used to refer to the territory, which means that its use is warranted by guidelines. Northern Cyprus is not a euphemism, if you want to achieve a new consensus to change the name of the article, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion on its talk page, and till such a consensus is achieved, I am afraid that your points above are invalid and you should stop bringing them up every time. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic could similarly be consistently referred to as the Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan, but that would be equally unacceptable, as it denotes the legal status of the territory while it is frankly quite irrelevant. Inserting the legal status every time instead of the proper name to make a point violates WP:POV. Please do not start with the "pseudo-state" business as it is frankly an extremely biased, uncommon way of referring to Northern Cyprus, demonstrably used by Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. Arguments for and against classifying Northern Cyprus as a puppet state are already given in the politics section and even if it was universally agreed to be a "pseudo-state", it would not change the fact that the common name agreed upon by consensus is simply Northern Cyprus. --GGT (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about term used to refer to Northern Cyprus

This sounds like a promise to edit war about whatever that Turkish state in Cyprus is called. If this continues, you may be subject to admin action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourp Magar Monastery, Cyprus is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since you have continued to edit-war extensively and aggressively, despite all your previous blocks and warnings, I have reinstated the indefinite block you were placed under in 2013. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be unblocked. Please let me know. Neo ^ (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be unblocked?

I want to be unblocked. Please let me know. Neo ^ (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GAB for how to be unblocked. You should withdraw your previous statement "I will not tolerate any mention to northern Cyprus." Admins perceive this as a promise to edit war about the naming of Northern Cyprus. For whatever reason, Northern Cyprus is the name that has been agreed on here by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, how do I withdraw it? However, a point must be made, that the particular user was promoting "recognition", this is why I told him that. Neo ^ (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we look back over your record, we see you've been blocked seven times by different admins since late 2013. Until there is a drastic change in your attitude I don't see much reason to lift this block. You are so fervently attached to your personal point of view that you are unlikely to make neutral edits concerning Cyprus. EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how will you know that I've changed if you haven't given me a chance? Really? I deserve another chance... Neo ^ (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was told I should explain my case here. So, here it goes. Another user (CGT I think) repeatedly attempted to impress his own POV by using terms like 'Northern Cyprus" instead of Turkish-occupied Cyprus. I objected, because the proper term is the one I used and I was blocked. I promise I will behave and I will discuss things. Neo ^ (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a convincing appeal. You claim that another user 'tried to impress his own POV' by using terms like 'Northern Cyprus'. This overlooks the fact that consensus has approved the use of Northern Cyprus as the name for this political unit. I am not inclined to lift the block myself, but if you want to have the situation reviewed by a different admin, you need to use the {{unblock}} template, as explained in WP:GAB. I'm still looking forward to the 'drastic change in your attitude' which I proposed above as a reasonable condition for your unblock. I still believe there is no chance at all that you will be able to make neutral edits regarding Northern Cyprus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you fail to see my point. The correct term is occupied Cyprus and everywhere he encountered this term, he made it "Northern Cyprus", which is diplomatically wrong. I shouldn't be punished for this. At any rate, I don't want to wage a war against him, I have much more important things to do and other edits to contribute. Neo ^ (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I should not be indefinitely blocked

Decline reason:

Per above, you still don't understand how consensus-building in Wikipedia works. Max Semenik (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2015 (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.

I really want to be unblocked, as I have so much to contribute to Wikipedia.

Re: your email

I see that you don't understand a lot of things. And how can you promise to do something you don't understand? Max Semenik (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stupid and I understand a lot of things. I know what edit warring is and I said I won't do it. I am willing to do this in order to be able to edit other articles. Neo ^ (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You emailed me again, however I never unblock based on private requests. Your talk page access is active, you should just make another request here. Max Semenik (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me.

I would like to be unblocked. It's been a long time and I really deserve another chance.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

A lot of time has passed since my ban, things have changed and I've re-considered some of my options. I do have a lot of things to contribute to, so I would like you to unblock me please. Neo ^ (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you read the standard offer. It is a common way back after an indefinite block. It takes 6 months at least, you are getting close, ask for the standard offer then and try to provide the information asked for in that essay. HighInBC 06:21, 20 December 2015 (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.

Standard Offer

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Over 6 months have passed since the time I was blocked. I believe that mistakes have been made on my part, by not seeking consensus and general agreement on some topics and I am more than willing to move forward, because I have too much to contribute to Wikipedia. I am an author, an editor, a translator, a researcher and a scholar and it would be a pity not to use my knowledge to enrich Wikipedia. In the future, when there is lack of agreement, I will not force my self through edit warring. Thank you in advance. Neo ^ (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block lifted by User:Master of Puppets as per discussion below. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have been blocked six - let that sink in, six - times for the exact same reason, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable extending you the standard offer in its vanilla form. Not to mention that you've posted similar unblock messages before, more or less.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you seem to understand what went wrong. Given that fact, and the amount of time that has passed, I'm not going to decline your request; rather, I'd like to offer a compromise.

You will receive a full unblock and restoration of your editing privileges, with one condition - you will be subject to a zero revert rule. This is self-explanatory; in the event you revert another editor editing in good faith, you will be reblocked. The only exception is reverting obvious vandalism. You would be subject to this rule for the indefinite future.

This is a one-time offer. If you break your unblock condition, even once, you will be reblocked indefinitely. There will likely be no similar chances in the future. And, obviously, all the standard rules still apply; be civil, don't attack others, etc.

Does this sound like a fair deal? Can you confirm that you understand the restrictions placed upon you, and explain in detail how you will avoid repeating your past mistakes? m.o.p 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I will not be able to revert an edit (how long for?), but what if this isn't vandalism, but it's wrong? Do I create a talk page and discuss it?

It would last indefinitely, or until you're told the restriction has been lifted.

If something is wrong, and you've got the sourcing to prove it, then yes, you would address the issue via article and user talk pages. You may correct incorrect information in an article, but you may not revert, or make any edit that is effectively a revert. If at any time you are unsure of whether or not your action would be considered a revert, I suggest you double check with someone else beforehand just to avoid being re-blocked again. m.o.p 07:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but I do hope that at some point this will stop (i.e. the restriction). Thank you. Neo ^ (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is in place solely because of actions you've taken. Whether or not it is lifted depends on how you proceed from this point.

Can you give me a clear picture of how you will avoid editing disputes in the future? m.o.p 19:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will correct information and, if dispute arises, I will try to reach a consensus and not force my opinion on others. I've got this! Neo ^ (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Per the above discussion, I've released your block. Please don't make me regret giving you another chance.

You're always welcome on my talk page if you have questions. Any other administrator will also gladly help you out.

If the going gets tough, remember - keep your cool. Step away from the computer for a bit if you have to.

I'll come back in a few days to see how things are going. Best of luck, m.o.p 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this unblock request develop, and have a couple of comments. Firstly, you may find that some pages aren't being watched by any active users. In that case, if there's an edit you disagree with and you get no reply on the talk page, you can always use the {{helpme}} template, explaining your restriction and the reason you feel it should be reverted.

Secondly, I feel it would be only fair to allow you to appeal the restriction after a given time. @Master of Puppets: would you agree to this, and if so, how long? 6 months? 12 months? Then a request an WP:AN to get the restriction lifted? Optimist on the run (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Optimist on the run: Thanks for catching that unblock template, I forgot to replace it.

I think discussion of appeals is premature, at least for now. While I've got faith in Neo, there's still a long way to go on the road back to full editing privileges.

If anything, I'd say a maximum duration of 12 months, with the opportunity to go to AN after 6 months, is reasonable. Obviously, this is entirely based on future behaviour. Agreed? m.o.p 22:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 6/12 months is a long time... Neo ^ (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

For a fellow Wikipedian Building The future through History 15:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Request

In the article Hijab by country there are constant attempts by registered users and IP users (whom I suspect could be duplicate accounts of one person) to show the illegal entity of "Northern Cyprus" as a separate and legitimate country, and obviously in many other articles, without much ado. I revert it, but they change it back, even including my amended version that show the Turkish Cypriots as a distinct society but as a subsection under the legitimate section of Cyprus. Could you do something about these users and alert them?

Thank you. SednaXV (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they've blocked me again, and for a stupid reason. Imagine what would happen if I reverted something! Neo ^ (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

Your recent reinsertions of Armenian names on several Cyprus location articles ([8][9][10][11]) were clear violations of the 0-reverts agreement that was the condition of your unblock a few months ago. You must have been aware of these being controversial, as you had previously inserted the same material several times on each of these articles, had repeatedly been met with reverts by other editors, and had discussed the issue on this talkpage [12][13][14][15]. In line with the unblocking admin's warning that any infraction of the 0RR would be met with an immediate reinstatement of the indef block, I have reblocked you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfair and unjust. They are not controversial, as they were already in Nicosia and Limassol, all I did was add them in the other towns/cities. I must be unblocked again and you have abused your power. Neo ^ (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot be careful of everything I add and check if, at some point in the distant past, this was controversial or not. Neo ^ (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Future Perfect has abused his power and has blocked me. I did not violate anything, I only added what was missing from the other 4 towns/cities.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of 0RR restriction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2016 (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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Neo ^. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]