User talk:AngBent

Welcome!

Hello, AngBent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Hydra (island). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Steven Walling 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Greece Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Greece
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Greece. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! -Alexikoua (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

=/= NPOV

Δεν συμφωνώ έτσι κι αλλιώς με τις πολιτικές σας απόψεις, αλλά το να γεμίζεται σελίδες σχετικά με την επανάσταση και τον εμφύλιο πόλεμο με κομμουνιστική προπαγάνδα απλά δεν είναι σωστό. Ευχαρίστως θα το γύριζα όλο πίσω αν δεν με μισούσαν τόσο πολύ όλοι οι admin. Κατά τ'άλλα, προσέχετε τι γράφετε και ας παραμείνει η Wikipedia ουδέτερη, ε; Yannis A. ^✆|☑ 15:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello! Nice to see new Greek editors around with a good grasp of English and making referenced edits. One plea however: please add page numbers to your references for ease of verification. Citing entire books for a sentence or a paragraph isn't really helpful ;) Cheers, and keep it up! Constantine ✍ 06:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek etymologies

Hey, Ancient Greek words in the Devil and Pankration articles are mentioned because they are etymologies of the English words. We call them Ancient Greek because English borrowed the words from Ancient Greek, not from Modern. It is true that the words are the same in Modern Greek, but we are offering an etymology, not a translation. Since the etymological ancestors of devil and pankration were ultimately Ancient Greek, we must call them Ancient Greek. — Eru·tuon 04:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John the Apostle

Is Ἰωάννης not ancient Greek? Tiderolls 16:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koine seems ancient to me. How is it no so? Tiderolls 16:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. After lunch I'll be posting on the article talk page. You might want to stop by. Tiderolls 16:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AngBent. You have new messages at Talk:John the Apostle.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP account

Hello, AngBent. Is that you? If so, please edit only under your named account per WP:SOCK. Thank you for your contributions. Biophys (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi there, I have noticed you have run into some difficulties. In general, if you encounter resistance to your edits, it is best to open a discussion thread on the talkpage. Also, if you are trying to remove unsourced text and it is reverted, it is usually a good idea to add a ^{[citation needed]} tag to the unsourced material. If the editors that reverted you do not provide citations, then you can remove it again with a much more solid footing. Also, when adding material, especially anything remotely controversial, make sure you provide citations for it. Lastly, do not exceed 3RR, under any circumstances. Even then, it is best to avoid reaching the 3RR limit frequently, because that can still be construed as edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Pylambert (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I am not involved in your dispute, but things like this are not okay. Please comment on the content and not the contributor. If you continue making personal attacks you will be blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the other side of this dispute, but your attacks are inexcusable. I'm not going to get involved so please ask questions to someone else.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Macedonian Struggle with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Macedonian Struggle

Use caution when making large-scale edits that remove properly cited and sourced material. Also, your edit summary could be seen by some as a legal threat. If there are concerns regarding the content or tone of an article, discuss those concerns on the article's Discussion page, or seek dispute resolution. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also,

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Macedonian Struggle and Aromanians. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply here and not on my talk page to keep discussion centralized. Please see the second point - do not edit war even if you believe you are right. There is no exemption based on whether you have sources or not.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper, I have talked with Alan the Roving Ambassador about my edits, and I think we have clarified the issue. I have already written much on the article's talk page, and I have thought of seeking dispute resolution, since my edits are constantly reverted. I have provided detailed references with page numbers and excerpts. I don't want to involve you in this issue and waste your time, but my contributions were made to present an accurate view of what the Macedonian Struggle was about. AngBent (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent[reply]

This is the problem. I won't take a side on this, but calling people "censors" is something that won't get this resolved any quicker, per WP:Civility. I will respect Alan's judgement on this. If your edits are constantly reverted, please do not re-revert, that's edit-warring. I've requested protection of the pages involved so that no-one will be reverting. The best way to stop an edit war is to not feed it. If you provide detailed references, and you're still reverted, please discuss, and civilly too. The best way to ignore people calling you a POV-pusher and other things is to not fire back.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your position, and your request for the protection of the pages involved. I believe it is necessary, especially when we are dealing with sensitive political, ethnic and religious issues. AngBent (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent[reply]

I don't have a whole lot of time now, but will take a look into it eventually. Athenean (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring across at least two articles. While your conduct has been less egregious than other parties', and your conduct on one individual article doesn't rise to the level that a block would be required, the pattern of reverting without discussion across multiple pages does. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Struggle

I've looked into the situation like I said I would, and here's what I think. While I sympathize (I have ties to the region myself), there are a number of problems. Most importantly, I don't think removing the background section is going to work. If you are bothered by the amount of space devoted to IMRO, the best thing to do is to add to the section so as to make the amount of space devoted to IMRO proportionately smaller. Wholesale removal of the section is not going to work. Neither is "anti-Greek thugs" going to work. I don't think the Bulgarian users would agree to it, any more than I would agree to "anti-Bulgarian thugs". Similarly, "an organization composed of poor Slavic peasants that also included terrorists". If you remove that bit, the remainder of your addition has a greater chance of being kept. It makes perfect sense that the Greeks were not interested in autonomy but in enosis, I don't think anyone would object to that. As far as the changes to the lead "aimed at protecting the Greek population and strengthening Greek presence in the region, to prepare it for eventual union with Greece.", it might help if you phrased it a little differently, i.e. "from the Greek point of view....". I know this might be hard to accept, but I am speaking with four years editing experience and this is the feeling I have. Like it or not, we have to reach some sort of understanding with the Bulgarian users, just like they have to reach an understanding with the Greek users. I'm not going to go away, but neither are they. And believe me, in my experience they are far better than many others around here. Athenean (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avraam Benaroya

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but your recent edits, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Use also the talk-page to discuss. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Rebetiko. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alfie ↑↓© 15:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radicalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited The Republic (Plato), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Callipolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate place names

Would you please stop removing alternate names of settlements and other geographic features just because you dislike them? This violates Wikipedia policy on geographical names, which recommends including foreign language names in the lead if they are used by at least 10% of English sources or were used by a group of people which used to inhabit the place. Also most settlements which once had a substantial Greek population in neighboring countries (including Bulgaria) do have a Greek name. Why aren't you removing them? Kostja (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single settlement which once had a substantial Greek population in neighboring countries (including Bulgaria) to have a Greek name in Wikipedia. But this isn't the point here... What is at issue is the obsession of certain users to impose their POV (and not in a particularly intelligent way, I have to note). If you want to add alternate names you should add not only the Bulgarian name, but all names used by all peoples that have inhabited the place, on a history sub-section, and explain the time period that these names were used. But you're not doing that, are you? Look for example what the Italian users write about the Greek Ionian Islands and Patras, which had significant Italian populations... AngBent (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been looking in the right places. See Melnik, Nesebar, Burgas, Sozopol and so on. Of course some of them have it in a separate section, but that's hardly necessary for most small settlements.

As for your thinking that certain users are obsesesive, that's irrelevant. These place have Bulgarian alternate names, because lots of Bulgarians used to live there once. That is sufficient according to Wikipedia policy. And since you have also been deleting historical sections, you argument is quite hypocritical. Kostja (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer to my arguments. You simply continued to attack me in an ad hominem manner, which will not be tolerated. As I wrote previously, "If you want to add alternate names you should add not only the Bulgarian name, but all names used by all peoples that have inhabited the place, on a history sub-section, and explain the time period that these names were used. But you're not doing that, are you?" AngBent (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to determine Wikipedia policy, which has been clearly described above. Inclusion of alternate names is permitted and encouraged. Incidentally, you're removing historical and referenced information, so please think of a better argument. Kostja (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's really incredible is that Kostja recently removed the former Turkish name of Svilengrad [1] from the lead, presumably because it's already mentioned in the History section immediately below that. But in Ellinochori, he has reverted I-don't-know-how-many times to keep the Bulgarian name in the lede, even though that name is mentioned in the History section immediately below. Unbelievable. Athenean (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same history section that AngBent has removed multiple times (despite it being referenced)? Kostja (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a cn tag I see there? Athenean (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since he also removed the part which was referenced, how does that matter? Kostja (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't referenced when you first started edit-warring, and the only thing worse than edit-warring is edit-warring to re-insert material with a cn tag in it. Athenean (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Goumenissa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SKG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Macedonian Struggle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have broken the WP:3RR rule at Macedonian struggle. If you join the discussion at WP:AN3#User:AngBent reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: ) and promise to stop reverting, there may still be time to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of possible sanctions

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottoman Greece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Police

Hi, I reverted your changes to Hellenic Police. You removed many sections. While some of the sections may have contained POV, I believe the abuse of tourist section doesn't. Furthermore, the abuse of tourist section is notable due to it rising to the level of multiple diplomatic incidents. They sourced with reliable citations. Furthermore, while the information is one sided, mainly due to nothing coming from the Greek authorities, that it doesn't rise to the level of violating the NPOV policy as all statements are objective references to what has been confirmed to already have happened. If you would like to continue this discussion, please continue it on the talk page for Hellenic Police for record keeping. Thanks. Transcendence (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Please, stop your disruptive editing, as you did to Avram Benaroya. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove correct information and reliable sources from articles, as you did to Avram Benaroya. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. You have a long history of edits in this article as removing everything related to Bulgaria in it. If you believe the information and sources you removed were incorrect, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you continue in this way, you will be reported. Please stop. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Avram Benaroya shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Jingiby (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Please, stop your prolonged disruptive editing, as you did to Avram Benaroya. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one doing disruptive editing my friend. Your contributions to this particular article are a clear example of coat-rack. This article is about Avraam Benaroya, yet you insist on adding completely irrelevant info about Bulgaria. If you continue on this path, you might be blocked from editing.AngBent (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Avram Benaroya shows that you tend currently to be engaged again in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule. 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. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. Jingiby (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted a blatant example of coat-rack. I'm not the one involved in an edit war.AngBent (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Avram Benaroya, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jingiby (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, yοu are engaged in edit-warring and might be blocked from editing. I only corrected a blatant example of coatracking. Please seek consensus and avoid ad hominem attacks. AngBent (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see. For example the sentence: Benaroya played a key role in the foundation of the Communist Party of Greece in 1918, you have deleted 5 times, is blatant example of coatracking? Jingiby (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hi. This message is being sent to inform you that there is a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Avraam Benaroya. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. —Darkwind (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please, stop your prolonged disruptive editing, as you did to Avram Benaroya. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing again. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove correct information and reliable sources from articles, as you did to Avram Benaroya. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. You have a long history of editing this article as removing everything related to Bulgaria in it. If you believe the information and sources you removed were incorrect, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you continue in this way, you will be reported again. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Avram Benaroya shows that you are again engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Avram Benaroya, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also keep in mind that in a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is to warn you again of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. 05:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Avraam Benaroya without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Denisarona (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The relevant thread is WP:ANI#User:AngBent repeat of edit warring on Avraam Benaroya. W C M_email 14:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. That is 3 reverts in the same of a short space of time, 3RR is a bright line on wikipedia. On a page subject to discretionary sanctions that is foolish. W C M_email 14:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Kuru (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Avraam Benaroya without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tutelary (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing based on your personal viewpoint or nationalism is an anathema on Wikipedia, please find somewhere you can productively edit or unfortunately I feel you will end up blocked permanently. W C M_email 09:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xanthi

Hi AngBent. TU-Nor is correct about the names. Please cooperate with him. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent long-term edit-warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]