User talk:Hellenic Rebel

Hi Greek Rebel! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beshogur (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Turkish language 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: The point is that I actually corrected a violation that was going on the page through time... You need to see what I'm saying... See the Russian language page. And then see the Turkish language page. And tell me, what difference has Abkhazia with Northern Cyprus? Greek Rebel (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "violation" are you referring to? Be specific. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about the content issue. You must get consensus for your changes (via discussing it with other editors on the affected article's talk page) if they have been disputed by other editors; see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian and C.Fred: But, please I have called the community to take part, and they say nothing... It's only me and the two users that disagree with me. And I am telling you, as I see that you had a look... See how Abkhazia, Ossetia, Pridnestrovia, Lugansk and Donesk are mentioned at the Russian language. Then see how Northern Cyprus is mentioned at the Turkish language. Do you think this is fair? The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is a de facto state, recognized only by Turkey that actually being the country that controls the territory. It's recognized internationally as an occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, and the de facto citizens of Northern Cyprus, are officially part of the Turkish Cypriot community of the Republic of Cyprus. So, how it's possible this entity, being mentioned at the page like a normal state. Why we don't follow the example of the Russian language page? Greek Rebel (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only me and the two users that disagree with me In that case you should either find a way to reach a mutual agreement with those two users (by discussing with them on the article talk page); or follow the other steps of the usual dispute resolution process if that fails. ANI is not the place for that; and repeatedly reverting to your preferred version does not help resolve the disagreement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have called for the community to take part, and you have plowed ahead without waiting for them. You need to wait for discussion at the article's talk page to reach consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred and RandomCanadian: So please tell me... Where could somebody response me? And I am not talking about the talk page, nobody is talking there. I see two users, with obviously POV opinions, just don't leave me correct the page! Somebody need to help. And at the talk page there is nobody... Greek Rebel (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, what makes you so sure they have "obviously POV opinions"? And second, see WP:RFC for how to request additional comments if you feel the discussion is stalling. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: "Question: Why it's Northern Cyprus put aside official states, while it's an occupied territory and unrecognized state. Answer: Because is a de facto state and there is no necessity to be explained". And then I see the Russian language page and it's exactly what I suggest. That's why I am sure that they have POV opinions. Greek Rebel (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the states in Russian language de facto states? I don't think it's an apples-to-apples situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Yes all of them are de facto states. Donesk and Lugansk have EXACTLY the same status as Northern Cyprus, "de facto unrecognized states, occupied territories of Ukraine/Cyprus, recognized as parts of Ukraine/Cyprus controlled by Russia/Turkey. Greek Rebel (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk is not, per its article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I mean Donesk People's Republic... Of course it's a de facto state... Read it's article. Donesk PR is exactly the same case as Northern Cyprus, only the countries are different. Anyway, all of these states are unrecognized. Even if they are occupied territories like Northern Cyprus or Donesk PR, even of they are like Abkhazia, the status and the presentation must be the same. Greek Rebel (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the status and the presentation must be the same. - that is something which you should get WP:CONSENSUS for on the relevant article's talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My own two drachma on the subject:

  "I have called the community to take part, and they say nothing ..." Which means that the community doesn't support your change. Your comments above indicate a strong desire to know how to get your way on this article, but the bottom line is that if you cannot get other editors to agree with you, you don't -- no matter how right you think you are.

  Aside from that, this is hardly a matter of "fairness." Why would we care that the Russian language article cites Abkhazia as a partially recognized state, and the Turkish language article doesn't cite Northern Cyprus as one? (It's not, after all, that the Northern Cyprus article fails to make such a distinction.) There are hundreds of language articles on Wikipedia, and jackbooted conformity does not apply to them. And ultimately, why does this bother you so very much, so much so that you'd illegitimately canvass off wiki to get people to support your POV? This is, frankly, a petty dispute and a waste of time and energy better put to use to improve articles. Ravenswing 11:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: Ok... I will explain you why this is bothering me so much. Cypriots, our brother-nation were attacked by Turkey at 1974. Turkish troops occupied the northern part of the island and they pushed out all the Greek-Cypriots from their homes. Then they established there a puppet state (Northern Cyprus), a state that is recognized only by Turkey, while all the other UN states and the International Law, recognized that entity as occupied territory of Cyprus. This situation is still the same. All these are not my personal opinion (so you cannot say that I am doing it cause I am a Greek), all of these are history according official sources, the UN etc. You can search it if you like. So now do you understand why I ran out of my mind? Because I visited the Turkish language page, and I saw that "it's official in Turkey and Northern Cyprus". And then at the infobox I saw Northern Cyprus other two times, without any explanation of it's status. At the other side, the Russian language page mentions only once at the infobox, the unrecognized states where Russian is considered official language. And yes, there are hundreds of languages pages, but only these two have such as similarly, that's why I gave it as an example. And please, you didn't explained me, why you consider these edits I have made as nationalist? Greek Rebel (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you are editing in a near-exclusive nationalist fashion ... and so does every single other editor commenting, and the admin who blocked you from the Turkish language article. I am a historian well aware of the illegal Turkish occupation and ethnic cleansing of northern Cyprus (while noting that Turks and Greeks have been doing this to one another for centuries), but none of that is the point. Yes, I am quite aware that the international community regards Northern Cyprus as an illegitimate state. What you have not made the case for is why every mention of Northern Cyprus on Wikipedia needs to have that fact prominently plastered to it.

Nor have you given the slightest justification for "running out of your mind" on this dispute. If you're as volatile and touchy as all of that on such a minor, petty issue, you are not a good fit for Wikipedia. And come now ... don't bullshit us. You are a Greek edit warring over what nomenclature is being used in terms of Northern Cyprus, in defense of your "brother-nation," and your edits are heavily devoted to topics involving Greek political and ethnic action groups. Of course you're engaging in nationalist editing. Ravenswing 13:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: I do not understand, what does the term "nationalism" means to you? Because on Greece we use it when somebody is putting Greece above other nations, and usually it has a far-right tone... Also I explained that nationalists in Greece do not recognize Turkish as co-national language of Cyprus, they believe at the Greek-Cypriot union, while I support exactly the opposite. Now, the fact that I am aware of this topic, or that I think it as something important, yes it's true. But I don't think that this is nationalism, I am just concerned at topics about my country (and Cyprus that's very close to us) and I am actually anti-nationalist (the nationalism in that case is mainly at the Turkish side, so I defend the International Law against it). In Greek Wikipedia, they have accused me of Communist POV (of course I don't think it's true, but how could I be a nationalist?). Greek Rebel (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get that not one editor agrees with your position? The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus goes against you, and your only recourse when that happens is to lose gracefully and move on. We are under no onus to give you answers that you like or with which you agree, but you are required to accept them. In particular, you need to accept that you are not going to get your way on the Turkish language article, no matter what arguments you toss out, and that further attempts to do so in the face of unanimous consensus against you will put you at serious risk of an indefinite ban from the English Wikipedia. I doubt my words will make any more of an impression on you than anything else anyone's told you here in the last few days, and I see no purpose to further debate with you, but here we are. Ravenswing 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: "you need to accept that you are not going to get your way on the Turkish language article, no matter what arguments you toss out": are you serious? So you are telling me that you just don't want to change it... If the arguments doesn't matter, then what? Greek Rebel (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you need to accept that you are not going to get your way on the Turkish language article, no matter what arguments you toss out ,because, not one editor agrees with your position. Cherry picking at its finest. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO. ONE. AGREES. WITH. YOU. And when that temporary block expires, and you barge right in to do whatever you please regardless, the denouement will be short and not to your liking. Ravenswing 17:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing Mate,you are wasting your time. In the Greek version of Wikipedia, Greek Rebel follows the exact same pattern of edits. Edits which are badly sourced, if not at all, usually of minimal importance, almost always from a phone. If they are reverted, then he starts making a fuss about it when he doesnt get his way around. His wording is usually emotionally charged and offensive towards the other editor in a very subtle manner , and always plays the victim. All he does is repeat his points over and over and over until things go the way he wants. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ιπποκράτης2020: Did you saw what's happening, or you just came here to accuse me like you do on Greek Wikipedia. You say: "edits which are badly sourced, if not at all, usually of minimal importance". May this is what you believe I do in Greek WP, but do you understand that right now I am trying to do exactly the opposite? Now I am following the sources in an extremely important issue, while the other users say that there is no reason to change the page or that it doesn't need to be mentioned. "Turkish language is the official language of Turkey and Northern Cyprus". Do you like it? If you do, continue to support the other users against me. Greek Rebel (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cinadon36 10:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Turkish language) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and disruptive editing. After the block expires, resuming the same editing behavior will result in blocks of longer duration, sitewide blocks, or an indefinite block.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 13:26, 6 June 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Scottywong: Hello there... I saw that you have blocked me, for edit warring and disruptive edit. I know, that indeed my edits had no consensus. But my edits were also according official sources and papers, and the International Law. There has been a POV push by some editors, who support the presentation of the occupied territory of Cyprus (aka "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus") as a normal state, while in the reality this entity is recognized as a state only by Turkey. The International community recognize it as occupied part of Cyprus. At Russian language page, the similar cases of Abkhazia, Ossetia, Pridnestrovia, Lugansk and Donesk, are presented exactly as I propose. I am sorry of reverting again and again, but the community didn't respond, and I think that this is a matter it should be aware the community. Thank you... Greek Rebel (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It should have been glaringly obvious to any reasonable editor that your edits do not have consensus, and no one else agrees with you. You were reverted 9 times over the last week or so on Turkish language, there have been multiple discussions on the article's talk page, and two different threads on WP:ANI. If you can't take the hint after all of that, then I think you need to take a short break from editing this article. Other editors should not be forced to continually clean up the messes that you make. If you still have a desire to contribute to this article after the block expires, please try to think about how you can contribute constructively, and please also consider that there's a chance that the edits you're trying to make are inappropriate, wrong, or not supported by sources. I don't know anything about the Turkish language or Northern Cyprus, but I know disruptive editing when I see it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:01, 6 June 2022 (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, I see your argument that Russian language displays the official countries in a certain way, and you were emulating that format. The Russian article groups countries together as "UN member states", "Partially recognized states", etc. There is a show/hide button next to each group, since there are at least 5-6 entries in each group. In your proposed reformatting of the Turkish language infobox, you would have two countries in the "UN member states" group, and one country in the "Partially recognized states" group. It seems rather obvious to me that it's unnecessary to require the reader to click a "show/hide" button to expand a group that only includes one or two entries. You seem to be insistent on labeling Northern Cyprus as a partially recognized state for some reason, and your desire to apply this label seems to blind you to the fact that this kind of formatting is unnecessary on language infobox that only includes 3 states. By comparison, the Russian language article has 16 states, so it makes sense to group them and use the show/hide button to reduce the amount of screen space taken up by this text. Anyway, if you still insist on labeling Northern Cyprus as a partially recognized state, I'd suggest that you use the next two weeks to put together a clearly worded proposal for why it should be labeled as a partially recognized state in this particular infobox, and put together a sample infobox showing what it would look like. When the block expires, make this proposal on the talk page and see if you get any support. If you get support, great. If you don't get support, then it may be time to drop it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the status of the legitimacy of the states is not important or relevant to the article on a language. Let the individual articles handle those details, it's irrelevant to an article on a language what the UN standing of a state or region it's spoken in is. It has nothing to do with anything. The only thing an article on language should be concerned with is where is it spoken, not any more detail about that where. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that Greek Rebel posted same unblock requests twice. I think both should be considered reviewed or one should be removed instead of leaving one of it open for review. GenuineArt (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems ScottyWong accidentally duplicated the unblock request when answering it, so I've just deleted the duplicate. Canterbury Tail talk 15:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement-question: User Scottywong says: " I don't know anything about the Turkish language or Northern Cyprus, but I know disruptive editing when I see it." How is this possible? You cannot understand if I am wrong or if my words are POV or "nationalist" or anything else, while you are not aware of the topic. Greek Rebel (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing can be disruptive even if the material is factually correct. In particular, accuracy is not a defence against the three revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Yes but, what if I am right according the sources and the other users don't let me do the changes? There, it could be exactly the opposite, I would be the one who make the right version and the others be the disruptive. Anyway, I think that in such as that matters, we need experienced users with knowledge at the situation. Greek Rebel (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. If there is a consensus against your version, then you are in the wrong to make the change. You are correct that what you need to do in such situations is bring in experienced users. WP:Requests for comment is a way to do that, but make sure the request is written neutrally. —C.Fred (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But going back to the situation that led to your block, it isn't about the accuracy of text in the article. It's about how material is summarized and presented in the infobox. This is a style issue; the only relevant "sources" are the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Yes I deleted the only part of my request that it could considered not neutral. But I think that most of the users see the matter as unimportant. This is not serious... And that's the point, if you knew exactly the situation you wouldn't say that this is only a style issue. Northern Cyprus is not a de facto state, but a de facto puppet state and occupied territory. And also it is a matter of neutrality cause at the Russian language page, we have similar situation and the presentation is different. Greek Rebel (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me again. What changes to the prose of the article did you think needed made? —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you need to add Cyprus at the introduction. I think that this is obvious, Turkish is official in Cyprus. Then, I propose the removal of Northern Cyprus from the introduction and from the "countries" section at the infobox, because it's not a country as I have analyzed above, it's a de facto secessionist state at the best, an occupied territory at the worse. At the "states were the language is officially" section at the infobox, Northern Cyprus should be remain, but in similar way as in Russian language page (2 UN nations: Turkey, Cyprus / 1 partially recognized state: Northern Cyprus).
Don't you think that this version would be neutral and 100% correct? Why this is described as nationalist or POV? I don't say something wrong, I am based at the official status of Northern Cyprus and at the similar way of the presentation of Russian language. Greek Rebel (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we parallel Russian language, we need to refer to the "island of Cyprus", which also finesses our way around the Northern Cyprus situation. The Russian article mentions only four nations in the intro (plus the former Soviet Union), not the five in the infobox, and instead focuses on geography. —C.Fred (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: There is also a geographical section at the Turkish language. Well, actually the first "countries" section could be removed, it is not necessary. And at the "official language" section, what I say. The "island of Cyprus" wouldn't be right because there are Akrotiri and Dekeleia that belong at the UK and there only British and Greek are spoken. Of we say Cyprus (country) we are ok, because the northern part of the country (Northern Cyprus) is officially part of it. Greek Rebel (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At which point we are no longer paralleling Russian language, which mentions breakaway states. Instead, your edits just seem to be focused on removing Northern Cyprus from the article or at least minimizing its presence. Do you see why this sort of focus gives the appearance to other editors that you have a pronounced POV on this issue, particularly when combined with the Cypriots, our brother-nation were attacked by Turkey at 1974.... comment you left further up on this page? —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I don't want to minimize Northern Cyprus, I want to mention it only when it should be mentioned and with the right way. Firstly, at the introduction it should be replaced by "Cyprus" and at the infobox it should be a separation between UN members and partially recognized states, while the first time that countries are mentioned there is unnecessary and should be generally removed. And of course we could parallelize Russian language and Turkish language, cause we have similar situation. Also to answer you and explain: Cypriots, our brother-nation(well, I am from Greece, I didn't said something false or that is not well-known) were attacked by Turkey at 1974....(I didn't offend anybody, this is not nationalism, is history and I don't think that there is anybody that could say this is a lie). Greek Rebel (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Suuuuure ... go ahead and tell us some more how your editing isn't nationalist. For my part, I could do without being lied to. Ravenswing 01:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Here for assisting at canvassing efforts. Cinadon36 12:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beshogur (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Cyprus. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This edit summary includes an ad hominem attack directed at another editor. Not only must you refrain from edit warring, but you must also refrain from such attacks. Focus on the content and not the contributors. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Hello. The other user called me POV pusher becaue of what? The northern part of Cyprus is occupied by Turkish forces from 1974. This isconfirmed by the UN, and almost every gonvernment in the world, and also by geopolitical scientists. I added as a source the internationally recognized UN decision. With what excuse, tey revert me? As it concernes the term "far-right", a) I did not said "he is a far-right supporter", I said that this specific case is a far-right POV pushing. Greek Rebel (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 19:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Η Δώρα είμαι. εδώ μπορούμε να συννενοούμαστε αν και το e mail θα ήταν ακόμα καλύτερο. Τι κάθεσαι και ζητάς από τον Ευθυμένη;; δεν καταλαβαίνεις ότι έχει λαλήσει και νομίζει ότι είναι ο αυτοκράτορας της βπ; κάνε κανένα πινγκ στο Γεράκι αν θες, αν και δεν νομίζω ότι θα ασχοληθει. Έχουν λακκίσει όλοι και έχουν αφήσει Ευθυμένη και Φόκαλ να κάνουν κουμάντο. 130.43.66.45 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

φίλε, εκεί έχει εγκατασταθεί πλέον η χουντα των διαχειριστών. Τελείωσε το ζήτημα 130.43.66.45 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Largoplazo. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lebanon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In fact, there is a deletion discussion going on right now regarding the article about the alleged coat of arms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Lebanon. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Troutman: So, where could I make this public invitation for the users. Greek Rebel (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The open letter is not consistent with Wikimedia's stated goals, and I've contacted the Meta editor responsible. To answer your question, while Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) would be a better location to post, you should not be posting partisan political requests anywhere on Wikimedia servers. Clearly, you are not here to write an encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message! Non-free logos are not allowed on Commons. The file will likely be deleted shortly after being uploaded there. I'm not familiar with the Greek Wikipedia's non-free media guidelines, but I found that {{Non-free use rationale}} also has a Greek version. You can add this template after uploading the logo file on your local Wikipedia. I hope it helps. Yogwi21 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogwi21 Thanks a lot, it really helped! Greek Rebel (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakartvelian Parliament.svg - In this image the seats are distributed incorrectly as Coalition for Change has 19 seats according to latest calculation, so update the image so it can be included in the article. Also Unity coalition should have 16 seats instead of 17. Rutdam (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutdam: I see your point. I am going to fix it and re-upload it. Greek Rebel (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. The Macedonia naming case is now classified under Eastern Europe. Let me know if you have any questions EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Movement for Democracy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Movement for Democracy 188.4.247.216 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the editor, and received no response. It is generally a fact (there are sources at hellenic WP) that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are members of the party. I do not understand how the fact that they do not participate in any parlaimentary group, allows us to write that their party has 0 MPs. It has. It is something you can see at the French parties articles, at the German parties articles, generally everywhere. I believe it is obvious that my edit is correct. Greek Rebel (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you find sources that claim that these 5 independents MPs are acting in Parliament as members of the Democracy Movement, please add them. If not, let's not keep saying the same thing over and over again. Thank you! 188.4.247.216 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I find english-language sources that claim that 5 MPs are affiliated with KD, I will add it. Greek Rebel (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be in English; it can be in Greek as long as it says that these 5 MPs represent the party in Parliament. We already know that they belong to it. 188.4.247.216 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by «represent the party in the parliament»? there are 5 MPs of the party in it. there is no parliamentary group we know it, but the party has 5 MPs in the parliament. Greek Rebel (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Τhese 5 MPs are listed as independents - not as KIDI MPs - 188.4.247.216 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not true, those MPs are listed as independents meaning they do not belong in a parliamentary group. not that they are independent in general. KD has five affiliated MPs in the parliament, but it does not have a Parliamentary Group. It's not something unusual, look other countries... Greek Rebel (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Movement for Democracy. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not, you are the one who insists and make disruptive edits. Greek Rebel (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]