User talk:Pampos40

Your recent edit

Hi, please specify what you mean by anti-Cypriot propaganda. You are declaring Cyprus (or EOKA?) the victor of the Cypriot intercommunal violence although the main article states otherwise (abandonment of enosis as a political goal as the main result), and insist on splitting the 1974 invasion into two separate wars although the main article state no such thing. If you believe this to be anti-Cypriot in any sort of way, I suggest bringing it up on the main article discussion pages rather than adding inconsistent information that defeats the purpose of the list (being a navigation tool, not a separate entity). Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fanatical anti-Cypriot propaganda is when Cypriots are to portrayed in a way that they look as the losers in everything and always and the bad guys of each situation, where the actual data suggests otherwise. It is a distortion of the truth, in a fanatical anti-Cypriot way. The whole Wikipedia articles in relation with Cyprus, are full of a fanatical anti-Cypriot propaganda, something that even the official government of Cyprus is aware of and the ways on how this has occurred. Turkey has a big hand in this. In what is called here as the inter communal violence, is Cyprus government and it was a pure defense of the country from TMT armed insurgents. TMT insurgents were organized and given weapons by Turkey. Enosis was not the official policy of the official government of Cyprus. The invasions were two and not one, and the time between them, was much longer than the timeline of both of them together. Due to the level and amount of this propaganda a lot of people may need to come here, find it and change it, so do not expect to speak only with me here. In addition, obviously this propaganda is being enforced here. Otherwise this would not have occurred in that amount and level. What is the purpose of the list again, that you are saying?

Now, since you are part of this, (as I see from your history and it is pointless to pretend otherwise( You have a Norwegian name for Microwave, but you even went to the Larnaka airport raid! and deleted the Cyprus victory there (Not even a Grey Wolve would have search and gone that far in deleting Cyprus victories)) and pretend that what is called here as an inter communal violence, is not a Cyprus victory, due to the reason that you have stated) you can always find real data, numbers and logic, from official sources of any neutral country, international or European organizations, to confront the ones that are going to be presented here. If you think that it will be difficult to find the purpose of each user and admin here, you are highly mistaken by the way. Speak to you later on....

Pampos40 (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously accusing me of working for the Turkish government? The Larnaka raid article states the Egyptian forces surrendered, so the Cypriot victory goes without saying (and I prefer to keep the infoboxes short and simple).

If you have objections to the content of the main article, address it to the respective discussion pages rather than adding inconsistent information elsewhere. So far you've provided no factual argument, and you make no secret of your nationalist agenda. This is not how we do things. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating that you are part of the fanatical anti-Cypriot propaganda, as evidence suggests. If you want more people to suggest this, we can easily arrange that. Now I don't know if you are working for the turkish government or if you are working in general. It is not my business, on where are you working. Falsely accusing me of nationalism, or of not providing factual arguments, or for not talking, or whatever else comes to your mind, won't change the evidence that I have, I am stating and I will be stating me and others in this. What do you mean by we do things here? Are you in a team? And if yes, do you want to share their user names? You seem to me, (to the evidence actually, but let's say me) that you are following a turkish propaganda tactic. Prove me otherwise. Pampos40 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GiorgosY, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history at Cypriot intercommunal violence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that is war editing and not I. Aren't you the one, that just reported me for something and then added offensive comments there, while deleting my edits with not any relevant reason or excuse? Pampos40 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pampos40 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to tell them that you are deleting my edits with no reason and excuse in order for me to react and accuse me for war edit. Pampos40 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

In addition, please stop your persistent personal attacks. Nobody is trying to "hide" anything. --GGT (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that you are constantly deleting a war crime that was admitted by a turkish source and I am the one that I am doing the disruptive editing according to you? Very interesting, and by the way is not me that I am doing the personal attacks but you and your team. That is what all the evidence is showing by the way and anyone can check this. Very interesting tactic to accuse the other party for exactly what you are doing. If you are not try to hide anything, then why are you constantly deleting the war crime? Don't you know that this is illegal according to European law? Pampos40 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing and persistent personal attacks. You also threaten to "bring a few or more, friends on board"[1] and "come with an appropriate team and tactics to counter it",[2] suggesting that you intend to either create socks or bring in meatpuppets to achieve your purposes. Don't bring "teams" here. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 7 April 2015 (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).

Pampos40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here Pampos40 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Also, technical evidence confirms sockpuppetry, and calling others liars without evidence is a personal attack. Huon (talk) 00:14, 8 April 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.

Disruptive editing, puppets, and persistent personal attacks, you have said.

The disruptive editing is done by user GGT. You can check his additions and deletions. Following and deleting my edits, deleting the sourced, war crimes of the turks, adding false war crimes with no evidence that is blaming the Cypriots for them. They are in his latest editions you can check them. If I am getting blocked for this, don't you think that the one that is actually doing this, should be blocked as well?

The personal attacks are done by user Dr K. I have stated it before, how and why. If I am getting blocked for it, don't you think that he should be blocked as well, since he is the one that is actually doing them. How can I be the one that I am doing the personal attacks, since some users have filled my talk page, and other pages, before I have even responded to them.

Puppets you have said, where the puppets are supposed to be a team. Don't you think from what you are seeing from the ones against me, in one day of usage in my talk page, and in my edits, is a team work? There is a team for certain, but is not mine. Don't you think that you should be blocking first this team, and then me, for any potential future one. Pampos40 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of GiorgosY (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 7 April 2015 (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).

Pampos40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Pampos40 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence is that a new account has appeared making the same edits to the same articles in the same problematic fashion that lead to the block of the original account. The new account uses the same IP and machine as the old account. Best case is WP:MEAT, most likely case is this is simply a sock. As you note, you intend to carry on the same battles, so I see no need to unblock. Please, take it to the highest levels. Kuru (talk) 10:27, 8 April 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.

First of all I have told to many pages from the first day, that the account is coming from an office that Giorgos works and that is Giorgos that told me of what is going on here, in relation with the discrimination, personal attacks, enforcement of an anti-Cypriot propaganda, deleting all edits that do not follow this anti-Cypriot propaganda, despite their well sourced evidence, the double standards in blocking, the blocking of anyone that is basically not following a specific anti-Cypriot agenda on the matters of Cyprus, after a war edit by a specific team, the same team that is trying to enforce its own agenda on Cyprus matters and trying to block anyone else from editing (propaganda tactics) e.t.c.

Everything has to do with a discrimination, the effort to dictate, personal attacks and the effort to enforce an anti-Cypriot propaganda on Cyprus. Second Giorgos is not writing in Wikipedia anymore, so he has no active account. Third as I see, all the things that Giorgos is saying, are true. You can block the account, and you can block it forever if you please, I will take the matter to the highest levels, and we will speak from there. I will give all the names and all the evidence necessary, and I if I don't see anything happening you will see this in popular newspapers and news-portals, and often, explaining exactly what happened, what is happening and what is going on, with evidence. Evidence matters to the rest of the world, in contrast with here. Pampos40 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]