Cypriot Chauvinist
February 2020 edit
Hello, I'm GreenMeansGo. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GMGtalk 16:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. GMGtalk 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Cyprus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Dr. K. 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
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:Cypriot_Chauvinist reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
February 2020 edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cyprus. Praxidicae (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)March 2020 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. --John B123 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Dr. K. 11:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Per a WP:AIV. As predicted by User:Ponyo in this edit, an indef block was likely. The question was whether you would be able to edit 'collaboratively and productively'. Clearly the answer is no. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Cypriot Chauvinist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Information regarding my country is being constantly vandalised by people for no reason such as information about the National Guard (Cyprus), I have cited sources multiple times and have explained that some of the information is straight out wrong or old. I do not see why my country is up for debate with people that dont even live there and people who feel like because they have the numbers, can write what they want. This is the reason I am constantly in edit wars. The fact that I have been blocked from editing when my sources are quite clearly there is horrific and displays the bias some administrators have within wikipedia and shows there is an issue that needs fixing. I will gladly tell an admin. what information is wrong and why.
Decline reason:
No. Learn how to resolve disputes. Until you can convince us you'll never again engage in an edit war, even if you think you are right, even if you have citations, you will not be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
@Yamla I have tried to resolve disputes by going on talk pages in fact I resolved one with John B123 recently and that was put behind but when people refuse to listen to facts its impossible to do anything. Its good to see though how misinforming wikipedia really is and how you have an agenda against my country. I honestly couldn't care less right now about unblocking me or not, your admins ought to be ashamed of themselves. A country is not a debate and a fact is not a debate either. Besides that, it takes more people not to engage in an edit war not 1 person. I have made this public to my following on social media though and I couldn't care less whether its 1000 people or 1 million, the incredible bias is beyond stunning.
Block edit
Cypriot Chauvinist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for a week now and I have made it clear that I am not here to vandalise contrary to some peoples beliefs. I wish to be unblocked as there is still misinformation and outdated information regarding my country which I wish to change and more specifically about our National Guard and Police Force. One way I can prove that I am not a vandal when changing these things is that the number of soldiers we have is no longer 12.5k but rather 23K due to the new enlistment standards of the National Guard. Furthermore, our LT.G. changed last week from Ilias Leontaris to Demokritos Zervakis but that was constantly being changed which is also why I was banned permanently (here is the proof from a news site https://cyprus-mail.com/2020/03/18/new-national-guard-chief-sworn-in/), furthermore this was live-streamed on facebook. All I wish to do on this site (All I've ever wanted to do), is just to simply better inform people about my country, you can see from my edits that I clearly want nothing to do with other countries and have never actually touched other countries or regions wikipedia. I hope me telling you this, showing you proof and you checking my edits prove that I am not a vandal, I've just been wrongly accused. Thank you
Decline reason:
You were not "permanently banned", but "indefinitely blocked", which is different. This request does not convince me that you will not engage in edit warring and you seem to not think that you did anything wrong. Your only comments on talk pages were unfounded warnings to other editors, not discussing your edits with them. Without conceding that your behavior was not appropriate, and/or describing how your behavior will change in the future, there is no pathway for you to be unblocked, and I am declining your request. Being unblocked may also require a topic ban from Cyprus related articles, as for whatever reason you are too personally invested in the subject to be able to write about it neutrally and discuss matters with others- but that will be up to the next reviewing administrator. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
So your argument against me is that I write too much about a topic I know? Isnt that the point of wikipedia, to share your knowledge on subjects? Besides you say I only write warnings to other editors, but I have clearly writtent before what I am doing but people still change it. Please tell me 1 logical way an edit war can be avoided when, if you do try talking it out, they dont listen. Cypriot Chauvinist (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- You should read policy on edit warring, which includes advice on how to address an editing dispute. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
^Actually helpful thank you.
Block 3 edit
Cypriot Chauvinist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So I reviewed the policy about how to avoid an edit war and I will now go to talk pages when editing as well (Didn't do that before) rather than just keep going back and forward with the edits.
Decline reason:
Great. However, you have made no attempt whatever to address the other problems with your editing. You have had ample opportunities, both before and during the block, to indicate an understanding of the problems, but your only responses have been to deny the existence of those problems, or to ignore their existence, and to attack other editors. Therefore leaving your talk page access open is unlikely to serve any purpose other than wasting the time of administrators who spend time dealing with your unblock requests that don't address the reasons for the block, instead of spending the same time on more useful work, such as reviewing proper unblock requests. I shall therefore remove your talk page access. JBW (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
is open. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
is closed. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist#05 March 2022. Noting checkuser block and WP:CBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
is closed. Note further ban evasion via M4MK16 in September, 2023. --Yamla (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)