User talk:Omadae1

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Omadae1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Aramgar (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aramgar (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality please

Your edits to Epirus-related articles have been tendentious. Please always bear in mind that Wikipedia is meant to represent a neutral point of view. Users who are here to push an agenda about their nation or ethnic group are not welcome. Note that you can be blocked from editing if you continue revert-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Πλιιιιζ

Μπορείς σε παρακαλώ να σταματήσεις; "Greek Epirote Yiorgos" and "huge atrocities" aren't neutral at all. Aν σε βοηθάει καθόλου, είμαι συμπατριώτης οπότε ηρέμησε. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Omadae1: Your persistent edits to the articles Skanderbeg, Epirus (region), and Epirus (periphery) do not comport with Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. Please discuss such controversial changes on the talkpages of these articles before making further edits. Thanks, Aramgar (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, WP:ARBMAC

I've blocked you for persistent edit-warring. 48h for now.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-blocked you for sockpuppeting and block evasion with user:Ellas1921. 72 h this time.

In addition, I'm now placing you under a revert limitation. For the next four months, you are not allowed to revert any one article any more often than once in 48h. If you break this rule, you will immediately be blocked again, and for longer periods. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, when I said no more than once in 48 hours, I didn't mean that as a license to keep up your sterile revert-warring just with lower frequency, as you did here [1] If you are unhappy about the wording in that article, talk about it. Propose alternative wording solutions and compromises. Work with the other guy. Just blindly and persistently undoing the other guy's edit just will not do.

So, to clarify, from now on, in addition to being restricted to once in 48h, you are also required to accompany every revert you make with an informative rationale on the talk page, explaining exactly why you revert and why you can't propose a new compromise version instead. I should have said this from the outset, it's the usual condition to go with these revert limitations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]