User talk:The name

June 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Obsessive–compulsive disorder. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a medical article. Read WP:MEDRS. Self-diagnosis is unacceptable. Sundayclose (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I a, sorry for the medical article, I won't touch it anymore. But I would like to know on what grounds my edits were removed in the page for Jesus? Am I wrong or this is a joke? Isn't it obvious that he is a Jewish man and the only Jewish man with Greek(even not ancient but modern) instead of Hebrew name in the lead, compare with Mary (mother of Jesus). Biblical languages are all in which the Bible was transliterated, e.g. German, Chinese. The originial language along with the etymology of the name Jesus was not Greek, but Hebrew or Aramaic in which he spoke and taught. Neither his name comes from Greek, OK it was transliterated in it, but the Bible was transliterated in additional 100 languages. He is an important Jewish figure, even a proclaimed king, how can be he labelled only by MODERN Greek language so significantly and primary? And in addition he never spoke that language which contribute to the ridicilousness. What is so relevant for Greek to be the primary language for the page for Jesus after all? Is there anything? I don't see any reason for tthis. Nothing personal, but I think you made an uknown mistake, judging by Hebrew names in the lead of pages of other Jews in Wikipedia, for instance Mary (mother of Jesus), but I may be wrong, I don't know, I am just asking.

Look at other articles on Biblical figures. Many have the Greek version of the name, which does not suggest anything about the language the person spoke (just some examples: Paul the Apostle, Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, John the Baptist). It's simply the Greek version of a name. There is no Wikipedia policy that names of Biblical figures must only be presented in one language. You are creating a controversy that simply does not exist. And by the way, every language is not a Biblical language even though scripture is translated into almost every language. There are a few languages that Biblical scholars master, including Greek. Look at the curriculum for any reputable academic program in Biblical scholarship.

Let me make a friendly suggestion. You are fairly new here. Be cautious about making controversial edits for a while. Look around. If you see something that you think is not right, first discuss it on the article's talk page and get other opinions. As you gain more experience, you can be a bit bolder in your edits. Remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but competence is required to edit. I'm sure you have a number of competencies, but you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before assuming you know what you are doing. Sundayclose (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I understand you, you sacrifice a lot of your time patrolling to prevent Wikipedia and do not have time to argue with new users. As much as I understand everybody is able to argue the content here, that you revert me doesn't mean that I am necessarily wrong, I rather need to discuss the arguable edits. BTW, all all of the articles you gave as examples have Hebrew names, that's what I meant by that Jesus is the only Jew without Jewish but Greek name, it doesn't seem to me to be of primest importance for this Jewish figure, i.e to replace the Hebrew.

You might discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. If you find enough interest and a significant number of editors there support your ideas, you might be able to make some constructive changes. Sundayclose (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time

Reference errors on 16 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Largest cities in Europe page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Moscow infobox problem

• Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some edits need a fix. Your first edit resulted in:

|pop_2010census= 16,800,000 (Urban Area)<br>(01-April-15)

|urban_pop_20104census=

The problem is seen in the infobox which shows:

- Density^{[10] [convert: invalid number]}

I think that is because {{Infobox Russian federal subject}} calculates the density from:

pop_2010census / area_km2

so each of these must be a number with no other text: pop_2010census is invalid. I'm not sure how best to fix that, so I'm hoping you can work out what to do. The urban_pop_20104census above is not relevant, but I noticed that it looks like some kind of typo. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed it

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Optakeover: This is in no way vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM and WP:BITE. This is obviously a good-faith effort to improve the article with sourced content. If you disagree with the content, feel free to revert it with a proper edit summary.- MrX 20:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: My sincere apologies. It was a mistake. Sorry for not checking properly. Please do message me on my talk page next time if you have further questions. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Innocent mistakes are part of making a great encyclopedia. Thanks!

Reference errors on 20 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Largest cities in Europe page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Largest cities in Europe page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to United States, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hello folks. Would anybody evidence that the whole Istanbul or Asia Minor is located in Europe? --Evropariver (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history 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.

In fact you have (by my count) added the same or similar material to the article seven times over the past two weeks, and your changes have been reverted by multiple people. That suggests that your proposed changes do not have WP:CONSENSUS and you should not continue to add them unless a consensus in favor of them can be developed at the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And another bit of friendly advice, Evropariver. I'm glad to see that you started a discussion on the talk page about Largest cities in Europe. But that's not enough. Once the discussion starts on the talk page, don't continue to revert even if other editors in the dispute do so. That's why you got the warning above from MelanieN. Wait to see if a consensus develops. And then respect the consensus, even if you disagree with it. If there is no consensus in a reasonable period of time and you still disagree, follow the process at WP:DR. I'd hate to see you get blocked when it is so unnecessary. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Largest cities in Europe page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC of interest

Hello! This is to let you know that there is a current Request for Comment on a topic which you previously commented on. The RfC is at Talk:List of European cities by population. The question is, "In articles which rank European cities or countries in order by population or area, should the entire city or country be counted, or only the portion which is in Europe?" Your input there would be appreciated. MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cannibalism 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:

• |publisher=Dictionary.com}}</ref> a West Indies tribe that formerly practiced cannibalism)<ref name="britannica cannibalism">{{cite web|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/92701/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Beauty page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beauty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lime, Cedar and Accessories. 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) 08:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert about the Balkans

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 the Balkans, 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.

--Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean?--Evropariver (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It means if you keep edit-warring pushing your POV on Greece-related articles and attacking the ethnicity of other editors you will end up blocked and/or topic-banned. Pretty much your whole behaviour up to now makes you a pretty strong candidate for these sanctions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, I edited Greece article only once for the first time, about attacking on ethnicity, rather Athenea does that [1].--Evropariver (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC) I can say for sure at least the revert on religions of yours is incorrect, Greeks article is about the Greek people, Greece would be for the total population

So you think you have not attacked the ethnicity of other editors when you open threads in Wikiprojects under the title "Alone against nationalists in edit war" and you comment On nationalist, by some Athenian(Greek) users, arrogantly falsificating the source I added,.... Have you forgotten so soon or do you have some other problem? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you really serious?Evropariver (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you answer my question above? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, nationalism is not an offense, it is a practice, it is widely practiced and should be reported when it is problematic. Everybody has a nation which can be offended, but when there is nationalism it is problematic and should better be reported regardless of the views of others. But let's not argue whose statement is offensive, mine or yours or both, I am not so mentally sensitive and I am actually not offended. Evropariver (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Can you answer my question on religion above?Evropariver (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, nationalism is not an offense, it is a practice, it is widely practiced and should be reported when it is problematic. You keep insisting on your BS even though I proved to you that many other users reverted your POV. You are beyond redemption. Please just WP:DROPTHESTICK and the stupid arguments trying to support your nonsense. As far as religion of Greece I already gave you the answer. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Civilization, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Your recent editing history 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.. Athenean (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy

There are a gazillion sources that trace the roots of Western Philosophy to ancient Greece [2]. So do some homework and stop playing "dumb". Athenean (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Other sources attribute it to Egypt. Please do not falsificate the source as you did in the Biology article.--Evropariver (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

On a general note

Your behavior is extremely disruptive. You are cherry-picking and misrepresenting sources, removing reliable sources that you don't like, adding in original research, edit-warring and pasting irrelevant material all over the encyclopedia. All your actions are documented, and will be used against you if you do not stop this. I have dealt with many users like you before. Athenean (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Who? You or me?--Evropariver (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Herodicus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making stuff up

As you did here [3]. This is totally unacceptable. Aristotle did not "study in Egypt". You are making this up. Why, I don't know. But please, stop. Athenean (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I don't understand you about Biology article, would you explain your arguments?--Evropariver (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, first you removed a high quality source (Lois Magner) that clearly credits ancient Greece with the start of biology. Second, the source you used clearly states that while Egypt and Mesopotamia made advances in culture and the arts, there was no science of biology to speak of until Aristotle. Your own source says that. So it's not quite as simple as "Biology starts in ancient Egypt". There are medical texts from ancient Egypt, but no texts of biology as a science in its own right. Medicine is not biology, that's why they are taught at different departments at universities. Athenean (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Earth 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} 10:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mathematics

I reverted your additions and changes to mathematics. You seem to be promoting a particular point of view in the history of mathematics, emphasizing Babylonian and Egyptian mathematics at the expense of the contributions from Ancient Greece. As mathematics is a prominent article, it's probably a good idea to discuss significant changes like this on its talk page first. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The article rather promotes a specific points of the contributions from Ancient Greece, so I included the rest to balance. OK I wlll discuss if you insist, but I am tired to describe the reliable which is obviously that I cited letter by letter, so if you won't mind please revert..--Evropariver (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You made some bold changes, you were reverted (by myself and by another editor), so your next step should be to discuss at talk:mathematics. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK I will, maybe later, I hope for a normal debate this time. So far I have posted on the talk page of several articles and nobody answers, if after BRD no answer will follow what's next? probably nothing.--Evropariver (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please mention if you agree or disagree with me if nobody answer, would you?--Evropariver (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

This [4] (trying to recruit editors who you think might be sympathetic to your cause) is called canvassing and is a major no-no. Don't do it again. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Meno25. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Mathematics. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stop attacking the ethnicity of other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Again, stop ethnicity-based attacks and canvassing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright

I examined your recent edit at Writing and found it contained whole phrases taken from the source. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences, similar blocks of text, or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. I initially encountered phrases that were word for word matches of the sources at Biology, and the next large edit I investigated showed the same problem. I haven't looked at any other edits yet.BiologicalMe (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I wont anymore.--Evropariver (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, he is also cut-and-pasting the same stuff all over Wikipedia, e.g. City, Human, and so forth. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Earth

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Evropariver reported by User:Athenean (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear, administrator, why was my report of the damaging user ignored, why did you decide to block only me? He inflicted damage of reliably-sourced content [5](-830 bytes of sourced content) [6] (-1,254 bytes of sourced content)‎ . I do not mention his attacks on nationality [7]. I wonder did you finally justified him, or this is temporary? If yes, why did you decide so? It is dishonest if only I am going to be blocked, if so I want to appeal, how can I do that best? Evropariver (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for edit-warring, because I edit-warred, so I will avoid in the future. I am planning my next step to be not edit-warring, but notifying Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to seek solution for the violated NPOV in the articles Biology, Mathematics and Writing by some users by replacing reliable, authoritative sources with personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions that do not belong.(as the second pillar claims) The same user who did this, who I reported, edit-warred as much as me and resulted unblocked [8], which is also part of my appeal and the disagreement for blocking only myself without anybody else as unjust. First of all, regarding my actions and the edit-warring I have been blocked for, I will follow the five pillars in the future, which also mean that I will avoid edit-warring as WP:BRD says.

Decline reason:

Based on the discussion below, I'm declining this request as you seem to be battling to fix a great wrong. PhilKnight (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2015 (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.

User:Evropariver, you appeared to be on a mission of some kind. You seemed to want to reduce the credit given to Greeks for inventing various things. Noticing that someone is on a mission tends to make me nervous when I am patrolling the 3RR board. The wording of WP:SOAPBOX comes to mind. In most of the articles you tried to change, your point of view was perhaps novel but was (at least for now) in the minority. As at Talk:Biology. The people who were undoing your changes were usually long-experienced people who work on a variety of articles. In this context, it was easy to view your edits as unusual and in need of more support before being put in place. You clearly were not waiting to convince the other people on the talk page before making your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, if I do not reach consensus and remain a minority view on the talk page I won't make my changes. I am reducing Greek credit only when somebody is increasing it to an extreme point, it is throughout articles in Wikipedia, even the Human article in history was saying that only Greece founded the civilization of the whole humanity, which was objected by a long-experienced user in Talk:Human who agrees with me, the humankind have numerous cradles of civilization which provided most of what was used in the later civilization Greece as a science and civilization, which were not even stated in the article about human beings. The reducement I see as a balance to NPOV, for example Greeks themselves all their prominent mathmaticians such as Aristotle acknowledged Egypt as the cradle of mathematics. In articles such as India and Russia it is not even stated that they are considered a cradle of civilization unlike Greece, an example of the style of emphasizing Greek in many articles throughout the articles, such as mathematics, biology and when I add the sources, they are replaced by an editors' own interpretations, a violation of the second pillar. The NPOV noticeboard needs be informed about this,Evropariver (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of the problem: The Human article doesn't say that "only Greece founded the civilization of the whole humanity". There is only a single sentence in that article that says that many ideas central to western civ including western philosophy, democracy, major scientific, mathematical and literary advances originated there, which is hardly extravagant. That's it. Yet this user takes that to mean that this means "only Greeece founded the civilzation of the whole humanity" and worked to expunge the only mention of ancient Greece from the article [9]. Even the mildest mention of ancient Greece is too much for this user. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about an earlier version of the article in 2015, a different one, when the problem was posted on the talk page, that's it [10], different than your quote:

"About 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt's Nile Valley and the Indus Valley. Military forces were formed for protection, and government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China, Rome, and Greece, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Ancient Greece was the seminal civilization that laid the foundations of Western culture, being the birthplace of Western philosophy, democracy, major scientific and mathematical advances, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, as well as Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy.[51] Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in West Asia, and Hinduism, originating in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time"Evropariver (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all that too is an accurate description of the impact of ancient Greece (it was the seminal civilziation that laid the foundations of western civ). But that's not the version you expunged Ancient Greece from, is it? Even the much milder later version was too much for you. You were set on removing every mention of ancient Greece from that article. Because even just that little bit is too much for you, isn't it? Athenean (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I can provide a lengthy explanation for my edit and I already did across talkpages and I am really tired to that again, but here is not the correct section. I am going to make a general explanation, my source makes a statement about the civilisations that founded human civilisition, your source does not, it just makes about a civilization influencing only WESTERN civilization, the article's name is "Human", this is the major reason I removed the Western addition and it is still off-topic there. Furthermore Greece was a late civilization of lesser importance than thesecivilisations on which the Greek civilizational achievements are based according to prominent Greeks eg. Arisottle and Herodotus, furtherly supported by secondary sources. So omitting Rome and Greece in general article Human is not as probelematic as omitting the earlier cradles. All these civilisations Egypt, Babylonia, India, China were not given importance in the article, the biased Greek style of writing omitting earlier civilizations of higher importance is present in a number of articles, which you systematically revert, this your behavior has to be reported to the NPOV administrations board, Evropariver (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing more than your own POV, which is quite extreme and at odds with the vast body of literature on the subject. It seems you are every bit as intent on pushing it as before you were blocked. And it's not that those articles don't mention other civilizations (they all do), but it seems even the slightest mention of ancient Greece irritates you and that is why you remove it from everywhere [11] [12]. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Athenean (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, your POV is very extreme and must be reported to the administrators NPOV board along with your manipulative edits and personal attacks, but here is not the section to discuss this, even though I am assuming good faith towards you. This section is for adminisatrators' qusetions, not about your inquisition, why do you keep spamming the section? Evropariver (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your idea of good faith is as bizarre as your idea of NPOV. Athenean (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

By labeling any names to me and my edits in order to make me looking bad to the administrators, you are trying to hide the massive amount of other than Greek civlisations' contribution and additionally by any means like source falsification because of your POV. This is a damage to Wikipedia and again, should be reported to the NPOV noticeboard. Evropariver (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear administrator, although I my first appeal was rejected I appeal again and I insist to be unblocked as you give me the right to do so. I understand what I have been blocked for, for edit-warring. I understand Wikipedia is a team work and collegial editing, so during a dispute, I will try to work with the others, discuss controversial changes and seek consensus instead of reverts. Maybe it was a false start, but I will re-read guidelines and although Wikipedia has not firm rules, I assure that I will be avoiding edit-wars. I will be very careful so that a revert not to lead to an edit-war. I won't be battling for what the administrator, who declined my request, was concerned, this is not my aim. All Wikipedians have a lot in common, they are smart as Jimmy Wales says, and we should use it to improve the project because no man would build it alone. Show me some love, from me much love for you bro/sis. Evropariver (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per your responses here, this looks pretty much like your goal. And no, you need to read the policies before requesting an unblock. Max Semenik (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (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.

This is NOT vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest you focus on using article talk pages for getting consensus for edits first, since you seem to be a little unclear on proper sourcing and the definition of vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Also his comments It looks pretty much unfair to me, given that I did not do anything wrong with my edits per third-party users comments as seen from this link he provided in his new unblock request are misleading. If you follow the link, the editor at Wikiproject Egypt actually tells the user, among other things, that But! If someone claims things such as "Western biology begins in Egypt", my alert bells start to ring very loudly. He somehow forgets to mention that fact. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Evropariver, it appears you still haven't read the guide to asking for an unblock, as you have been advised several times. If you had, you would have found this as an acceptable reason for an unblock: "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead." You keep demonstrating the opposite: you DON'T understand why you were blocked, and you DO intend to keep doing it. Since that is the case, you would be wise to just wait out your block and stop digging. Your block is only for three days and will expire soon - unless it gets extended because of your obvious lack of understanding and your repeated demands for an unblock. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear, Melanie, I declare "that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead." I completely agree with this and with you. If you are convinced, please, unblock me. I tried to convince in the first two appeals, that the block is no longer necessary, but I won't argue with the administrators for that each of them believes it is still necessary. My only argument is that I am blocked for edit-warring but another user who I reported edit-warred as much as me and remained unblocked, I feel unjust because this is still unexplained why it was so, do you really think his 17 reverts are far away from mine 19? I ran out of words, I don't know what to say. What else I can say to appeal, maybe that I hang up the mobile and the girl from The Ring Two told me "seven days" and I need some more time to edit Wikipedia, but I am sure you would not believe me and would not unblock me for that. I want to be unblocked now because I want to take part and vote in the discussions, this won't be possible probably after day or two, namely for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Propose topic ban of Rolandi+), If you say I won't edit articles in these 72 hours but Ill only participate in discussions but I want to vote against that topic ban, Evropariver (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And how did you find out about the proposed topic ban of Rolandi+? By following my edits perhaps? What an interesting unblock idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from Athenean's and your's edits, I checked what is going on Talk:Albanians and I agree with the buddy. Not because I want to be the opposite to you, rather the user appears to be similar to my case, you call the user a disruptive editor, while I don't see where he does anything wrong. Your link to battlegroundis inaccurate, talk pages are not a battleground. You are constantly following me as a hound even for what I post on my talk page and you are the permanent critical commentator of my appeals, you track other users' edits not usually for collegial or administrative purposes as what says yourlink in WP:HOUND but to keep them banned. Evropariver (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will be very careful with the reverts, avoid edit-warring again and I will use alternative methods to seek consensus, instead I will try to make useful contributions and improve Wikipedia. I believe the comments of the users above convince me further for the collegial work.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but your message above this unblock requests suggests to me you still don't get it and this is just telling me what I want to hear. The block is going to expire soon, have a break from this discussion and come back unblocked; then don't edit war again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 17 July 2015 (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.

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of copyright violation

Your addition to Science has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

The section on etymology you added was cut and paste from the Online Etymology Dictionary. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The name. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 19:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Letter of Lentulus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The name. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 22:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: Your Comments: Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Your Comments: The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Your Comments: Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The name. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)