Page: Long QT syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:999:50:31c7:99e7:2536:3719:a990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Also concerns of WP:COI with the IP in question appearing to really like the research by "Määttänen" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: 48 hour block to Special:Contributions/2001:999:50:31C7::/64 for edit warring with a fluctuating IP. See WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:EdJohnston. Here is another IP that has been involved with spamming this researcher. User:128.214.89.70. Fairly persistent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 128.214.89.70 (talk · contribs) has not edited since 20 December, but report again if you notice any continuation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked  Swarm  {talk}  07:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Origin of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC) "wrong edit summary by uninvolved editor"
2. 16:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC) "rv back to version edited by Calthinus&Resnjari (per talkpage)"
3. 11:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC) "most of those edits were done by user:Resnjari, partial self -rv needs explanation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[8]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been asked by several editors to wait till all disputes are solved on the talk page before changing the stable version. Has been reverting for days. Examples: [9][10][11]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the expression "reverting for days". I try to cool things down in talkpage and revert only when necessary per wp:BRD. Two reverts in 24h is certainly not a 3rr breach (revert #3 wasn't done within 24h from the other 2). I've participated in various discussions in the talkpage and several editors agreed and concensus was reached on various issues. On the other hand Ktrimi admits that he is reverting without even reading the text he removes [[12]] (with two instant reverts recently [[13]] [[14]] and more reverting the previous days [[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]]).Alexikoua (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to rv yourself. I have not made 3 rv within 24 hours, and as I said in my last comment on the talk page, I leave it up to other editors to solve the final details of the said disputes. Why do you keep changing the stable version? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest everybody involved in the dispute to stay away from it for some days. After that, discussion can resume again. Meanwhile, Alexikoua you should self-rv. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean stable version for example the product of discussion (in BRD cicle) and editting by a variety of editors leads to a stable version. This one in our case [[19]]. I've told you that If you have a certain objection with those agreed parts I'm open for a new round of discussion (I fail to see three rvs within 24h from my side too).Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And I suggest you (Ktrimi) take a nice long break from this noticeboard. This is the second time in a few days that you file a non-actionable report. This is clear WP:BULLY behavior and an intimidation tactic. Especially considering you broke 3rr a few days ago. Otherwise this will end up at AE. Khirurg (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg: The last report you filed here was closed with a warning for you due to personal attacks. Since then you have made other personal attacks. Do not speak for others when you do not respect the rules. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down the edit-warring and intimidation tactics, or I will report you to AE. I won't warn you again. Khirurg (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to file a report whenever you see it right. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There may (or may not, I haven't checked) be a case made for edit warring in general but everyone should read WP:BOOMERANG before filing one. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Ian.thomson:, Twinkle gave 3 diffs of edit-warring. Hence the report. A page protection would be good though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, do you mean that Twinkle filed the report after only three reverts? Because only three reverts within a 24 hour period happened. If that's the case, that's a serious bug that needs to be fixed. If you meant that you used Twinkle to file the report without either:

A) Double checking WP:3RR to confirm that the policy is "more than three reverts"

B) Double checking the number of reverts to confirm that they are more than three

...That's a behavior you need to fix. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not react so angrily. The rule also says that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". Anyways, I contintue to believe that my suggestion to all editors involved in the content dispute is right. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:: He's done this before. Several times. Khirurg (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991: I'm aware of the policy, hence my earlier remark that there may be a case made for edit warring in general but everyone should read WP:BOOMERANG before filing one. That you told Alexikoua I suggest you to rv yourself and Alexikoua you should self-rv only makes sense if you believed that he had violated 3rr -- unless you were using this report to get your way in a content dispute by re-interpreting policy in your favor. Now, I'd like to believe that it's the former reason (that you didn't misunderstood 3rr) and that you'll not file bad reports again but if you keep filing these kind of reports, we're going to have to assume it's the more problematic latter reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I know about BOOMERANG, someone reported me a few days ago and got himself topic banned. I made the suggestion for Alexikoua to self-rv as a good-faith gesture as he was changing the pre-dispute while several editors on the talk page were asking for that version to stay till all disputes were solved. In the same manner, I suggested everyone (myself included) to stay away from the dispute for some days to reflect on the relevant issues and return later. Do not be very quick to assume about the reasons I filed this report. Do not expect any further response by me. Cheers and thanks for you advices, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it's yet another unsuccesfull and bad faith report by the said editor not to mention his contiuous edit-warring this month (typical example a 4rvs wp:OWN barrage in just 2hours Albanian-Greek relations ([[20]],[[21]][[22]]4[[23]]) with persistent wp:NPA violations. I'm afraid this will lead to wp:BOOMERANG per admin's comment.Alexikoua (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When i advised you @Alexikoua to refrain from readding my edits into the article, which i had removed from the page as there was an ongoing discussion in the talkpage, you still added them in. Good faith was not observed and you took it upon yourself to edit war via WP:OWNERSHIP invoking me in your edit summaries as me agreeing [24], [25]. On the Origins of the Albanians page you also were against having any images of Albanians in the section about the modern era due to reasons that no one else referred too. When asked to explain [26] your reasons for removal [27] of pictures from the page you said:

• "They look like typical Caucasian people & nothing can be added without concensus" [28]
• "Images of typical Caucasian people prove nothing." [29]
• "It appears you misunderstood something: Caucasian is widely used as an alternative for white people." [30] -in that same edit to prove your point you included a map from the discredited work about races by Carleton Coon
• "Cartel Coon was born in 20th century (LOL). I assume you need to present a decent argument in this topic and to understand that raising the Albanian flag doesn't affect your genetics. Such pictures are unaccaptable in genetics section & non-Albanians can also raise Albanian flag or any other flag." [31]
• "Agree with Khirurg nothing useful from this recently added pictures. I have the feeling that the motive is somewhat racist here: genetically pure Albanians can raise the national flag, white race characteristics etc. etc." [32].
• "It's a good step we agree that typical white people in modern western style clothes are not helpful in an article about a specific ethinc group." [33]

I find it interesting because no other editor made it about those kinds of things, it was only you. Its disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on failed, bad faith reports with possible BOOMERANG effect isn't a contructive initiative. As for the above (unrelated difs) you finally agreed that images of typical blue-eyed white people raising national symbols (in Master race fashion) isn't the best solution.Alexikoua (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua, Ktrimi991's report was more than justified and those edits (which were not related according to yourself but were part of the wider editing to the article) more then show it as they were NOT constructive by any measure and nor did they develop good faith.Resnjari (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari:, I am afraid you are wrong here. Administrator Ian.thomson is correct that there is no violation about Alexikoua. Given Ktrimi991's worrisome attitude in a number of articles regarding the Balkan Topic area, I have become wary about his intentions. I hope you will do your best to discourage him from similar missteps and attitudes in the future. Otherwise, I may have no other option but call for the attention of the Admins. They won't be happy with this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident, the worrisome attitude here is Alexikoua's who removed content based on concerning reasons about race etc. Ktrimi991 was right in placing a report here. I advised @Alexikoua not to misuse my edits as i removed them from the article in the spirit of good faith as there was an ongoing talkpage discussion. The article reverting to the stable version was the right call by Ktrimi991. If you wish to report an editor you should do so, otherwise bluster doesn't count.Resnjari (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Cyrtians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:

Reported user changed long standing content (3 months) and i reverted and asked him to discuss on the talk : [39], i also opened a thread on the article's talk page : [40] but this was ignored by the reported user who kept reverting back, refusing any WP:BRD process. I pinged him [41] and asked him to discuss his changes, but this was ignored again, with a personal attack-like edit summary (As far as i know myself, i'm neither a Kurd nor a POV warrior). I don't want to get engaged in an edit war and i would welcome the eye of an admin here. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Only two reverts are listed above. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. Please use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, i know there is no 3RR breach, but as you know, edit warring is not a 3RR breach. This user refuses to discuss his changes on the article's talk page. Anyway, i drop the stick for now about this article and will let other contributors review his edits. Thanks for the time you spent on it. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Franco-Swedish War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.47.64.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46] [47] [48]

Comments: This IP has a history of edit warring and now it's happening again, despite the fact that the IP has been warned not to upload disputed material. I won't make any further edits to the articles in question but they have been loaded with unsourced material and statements that are not supported by the sources used by the IP. The IP refuses to acknowledge that. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this user refuses to acknowledge that this needs teamwork. My sources are reliable. One even includes the Norwegian royal court.[49]68.47.64.121 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above the sources you use do not support your statements. I have gone through them all and your arguments, they do not match. It isn't about whether the sources are reliable or not. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, you are already eligible for an edit warring block, but I will hold off pending talk page discussion, where I hope Bonadea will participate as well. If you make the edit again you should/will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, I understand your willingness to let the discussion progress, however... This IP does not appear to understand sources well (perhaps an English-learner, given his writing?) and seems unwilling to abide by edit warring policy. He's not pushing his recent edit now because he's gone quiet on WP, but will again when he resumes editing. Moreover, he does not appear to understand what reliable sources are, and has a tendency to interpret/synthesize sources. He does discuss, but got a little belligerent on the articles related to Murphy Brown (TV series) and continued to revert to his favored version. I had competence concerns based on that episode alone; these new edits reinforce those concerns. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm … ”gone quiet”? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeellll... He'd gone quiet when I wrote that. I did note he'd be at it again when he started editing. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP does discuss, yes, but they haven't displayed that they have an understanding of the arguments presented to them. That or they disregard any points aimed at them which don't support their own. The discussion on the Murphy Brown Season 11 talk page felt like a waste of time because they wouldn't acknowledge any arguments presented to them and pushed their own agenda. Esuka323 (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really think there's a comprehension issue. His interpretation of the term "take over" referring to the time slot scanned as though he was talking about the time slot being real estate that the new program coming in owned. It was very odd. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block I just reversed (I hope) a series of disruptive edits based only on blog stories. If this IP has been a problem before too, it's time to solve the problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 week, since the IP continued to revert after the above warning by User:Drmies, which was given at 18:06 on the 27th. The IP editor has been blocked twice within the past week for edit warring by User:MelanieN. They also seem to have made three reverts at Charles XIV John of Sweden. A number of editors believe the IP is not reading sources correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EdJohnston. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider a longer block should they edit war again in the future? They were a major hassle on the Murphy Brown pages with their poorly written WP:OR edits and their edit warring behavior. Yes they were blocked twice for this, but they clearly haven't learned that their behavior is wrong if they're doing it again. Esuka323 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Dove Cameron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AngeloKonecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 17:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 17:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sofia Carson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also on Sofia Carson and Cameron Boyce. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked  Swarm  {talk}  07:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Gang Starr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

146.115.65.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 18:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 875715651 by JesseRafe (talk)"
3. 14:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC) "It doesn't matter. Premier left the group too. No one in the group at any time was from Brooklyn."
4. 23:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC) "DJ Premier is not a founding member. The group started in Boston not Brooklyn."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 18:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Gang Starr. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has no intention of building a collaborative encyclopedia or reviewing the rules about what gets included and where, insists on reverting only. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

List of fabrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Johnnysama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:15, 28 December 2018‎ (UTC)
2. 23:23, 28 December 2018‎‎ (UTC) "No."
3. 23:29, 28 December 2018‎ (UTC)

I've had so many wiki disputes in the past, and I've tried to remain calm, but this blows my stack for Roxy the dog to think that Polyester is not a fabric, when it is. She just rolls it back w/o explanation. UGH. This is just the most arbitrary thing to do. We went through this nonsense a few months ago.

See Archive -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, you gave no reason as to why it is not. Johnnysama (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would you like Admins to counsel me to do? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a second opinion from someone else, for sure. I don't know why you're doing this, but I don't find your archived post funny. Johnnysama (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't read it properly then. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Johnnysama (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question truthfully. I am correct. Now I'm going to bed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. You just scoffed at me, and that's it. Johnnysama (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polyester is a fiber, not a fabric. Fabrics are made from woven fibers. A polyester shirt is made from a fabric that contains a ‰ amount of polyester fibers, but the fabric is not polyester, the fiber is. The fabric will usually have another name depending on its composition. This is clearly explained in the relevant articles. This should not have to be explained to anyone who is capable of reading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. Case closed. I'm sorry I lost my cool there, I just wanted a second opinion. Please close this dispute down. Thank you. 00:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Polyethylene terapthalate is a polymer. We know it as Polyester. it is made into fibres, yarns, pop bottles, fabrics of many types, knitted, woven, non-woven, polar fleece etc. etc. Itself it is not a fabric Goodnight. Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you win. I'm closing this now. I'm done with all this dealing. Good day. Johnnysama (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.107.134.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tidewings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gmantakis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]
7. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58], [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:
It is crystal clear that the anon IP, Tidewings, and Gmantakis are the same editor pushing a POV (see the edit summary for Tidewing's last contribution). --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the user User:Gmantakis. And I also assume that user TaivoLinguist and Chewings72 is the same person. I am open to discuss further and prove I am not Gmantakis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your four reverts as the IP and as Tidewings is still a violation of WP:3RR and is still subject to a block on your account, since it was created for the sole purpose of skirting around the 3RR rule to continue your edit war (without opening or continuing a discussion on the Talk Page). --Taivo (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to promote truth. Furthermore I still try to figure out how to enter the talk page dialogue because this is my first ever account. Taivo I think was too early in reporting me. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was your intention to avoid the WP:3RR rule and push your POV without a discussion. Your "first ever account" argument is suspicious because you opened it immediately after I requested page protection and right after your third edit as an IP. I don't believe you for one minute that this is your first experience in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TaivoLinguist it is clear that you want to ban my comment because it contradicts your position furthermore more this is my first account ever. And if you show me how to enter in the talk page I will make these clear. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are experienced enough to push your POV in the article and write POV-pushing and insulting comments in the edit summary, then you know perfectly well how to edit on the Talk Page. You are a classic example of a WP:SPA who has come to Wikipedia (not for the first time) to push a Greek POV against established WP:CONSENSUS in articles related to Macedonia. You came straight to this article, pushed your POV, came to three reverts, registered as a new account, and continued to push your POV thinking that no one would notice. --Taivo (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write POV pushing, you did. Furthermore I entered where ever I could when a red icon appeared in my account. It is obvious you want to ban me cause my position contradicts clearly yours. What is your connection with Chewings72? Let me enter the talk page. At the.moment I copy what I see on this dialogue to defend my self. Your haste to report me shows a tendency in pushing your positions with various means. From the moment I saw I could not keep my own position posted I thought to create an account to make it permanent. I still have not read the DDD section about the internet war or warring or how you call it. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one writing insulting comments the first place. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK now what? Do we enter the talk page?. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys please let me know. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also in my last edit, in the section where I provide the reason for the edit, the syntax in the phrase/sentence is incorrect due to auto correct use in my mobile. The correct phrase is 'Furthermore I can sense true passion to erase the truth by both of you editors. Why?'. Do we continue this chat or what? I need to go. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, why don't you answer me?? Can I log out, are we done? I need to know of what is going on while I am online and not offline. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I log out. I will be again online later, and when I will I will leave a message here for you to know. If you don't give me the chance to further defend while being online my self from the moment this is my first account and since I asked so many times for a further discussion and talk here, it will be a kind of bias towards me as I see it. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I don't believe that you have come to Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, but to push a Greek nationalist POV in a controversial topic. Let's say that you are new (I don't believe that for one second, but just for the sake of discussion). 1) You went straight to a controversial topic, a controversial article, and made exactly the edit that has pushed a Greek nationalist POV in the past and been the subject of much discussion and compromise in order to maintain a neutral point-of-view throughout Wikipedia. 2) When your edit was reverted by not one, not two, but three experienced Wikipedia editors, you did not ask why, you did not start a reasonable discussion on the Talk Page, but edit warred, continuing to push your POV without discussion in your blind belief that you were right. 3) You have done absolutely nothing whatsoever in any other article, the perfect definition of a single-purpose account. You have shown no evidence whatsoever that you have come to Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, but only to push your Greek nationalist agenda, accusing experienced editors of bias simply because we didn't bow to your Greek POV. If you and Gmantakis are not the same person, then he/she was sitting right beside you in the internet cafe and you were tag-teaming the article to push your POV.

If the administrators reading this thread don't want to block you outright for your disruptive behavior (as they blocked Gmantakis), then I suggest that you be subject to a topic ban that prohibits you from editing any article on the topic of Macedonia until you prove that you are a productive and community-minded editor here for Wikipedia and not just here to plant the Greek flag in controversial articles. --Taivo (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]