I really don't write this to mock you. I have seen you felt really offended with my suggestion, thus making me see you're legit a different user. I didn't want to make you feel insulted and I don't have anything against you. As you've comprehended, I had strong reasons and suspicions about that new user who coincidentally came as a "new user" but he seemed way too experimented with Wikipedia. But I don't know who it is, but it's definetly not you. So I give you this reconciliation kitten. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will be beneficial in your present, but it will suck the life out of you.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=655932674
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=5131023

Like Alice, if you're not careful you'll fall down the rabbit hole. I did. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Climate of Greece 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.
Please, for once, refrain to constructive edits and act as per WP:CYCLE and respect WP:GUIDELINES you are at the edge of another edit war in the page Climate of Greece where you try to impose your own WP:POV, at another revert I'll report you in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I'm politely trying to solve this with you in your talk page and you just delete it, then use the page's talk page but don't simply revert without reasons. This is the last warning before filling up the report.