User talk:LapisExCoelis

Population exchange between Greece and Turkey‎

Let's be frank and professional. It appears that your native language is not English. I am a native English speaker and I am ranked in the top 7% for verbal ability according to the GRE. I was not and I am not insulting you, and I do not want to get into some sort of fight with you. Trust me, though, when I correct those mistakes. Years old presence is never used in English,^[1] because the subject is singular. And is not "redundant." The Greek population began to decline is an independent clause, necessitating some sort of conjunction or just a new sentence. That's why I added and. You made it a part of another sentence, but the reader cannot readily see the connection without thinking. They need some sort of cue to guide them.--Gnfgb2 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I have no other way to contact the blocking admin but here. I would kindly ask an answer to these questions.

Have you checked the case thorougly? Have you considered what I have wrote in the 3RR reporting page regarding WP:3RR and Wikipedia:GAME as " [E]ditors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example ..[.]"?
Is it possible to lift the ban for the 3RR reporting page in order to finish my case e.g. by providing the diffs?

I will make no edits in wikipedia's mainspace for the 24 hour period of the ban, whatsoever. -- LapisExCoelis (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|This is an attempt to get the attention of an admin, preferably the blocking admin for the reasons stated above. I do not contest the blocking 'per se'. I'm sorry I can not think any other way of geting the attention of an administrator. Thanks}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

As the blocking administrator, I feel that this user is well aware of the 3RR rule as well as how they violated it. Given that the issue that this user was edit warring over is contentious, it has been difficult for me to determine the correct version of the page, and this user now seems to want to work constructively with other editors to hash the issue out.

Request handled by: Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This editor was clearly blocked by an admin despite LEC's response to my report (i.e., the diffs would make no difference), and I would encourage the retention of this electric fence for the duration. Corticopia (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not contested the block, besides the first thing I did mention regarding this case was that I did technically broke the 3R rule. The issue though here is your assumption of bad faith and most importantly your disruptive behaviour by edit-warring (including breaking the 3RR rule in this case too) and "gaming the system". I think that we need to bring to the attention of the community, editors/admins/whatever disruptive behaviours such as these and blatant manipulations of the system. --LapisExCoelis (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What assumption of bad faith? You insinuate pleonasmic wording that may be disagreeable, you are reverted, you edit war, and continue to do so despite warning. If anyone is gaming the system and being disruptive, it is certainly not me. Discuss your changes and compel for changes. End of discussion. Corticopia (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon your own admission I was restoring "[l]ong-standing 'impartial' text..." (see diff). The version that I was restoring was there for months (e.g. 7 October 2007, 11 November 2007, 6 December 2007 etc) up until the 30 December 2007 where User:3rdAlcove removed it without any edit summary, discussion, explanation or 'consensus' whatsoever. The very next edit, days later, was by myself in which I have restored the deleted long-standing text (see [2]); within minutes, it was reverted by you (see diff), stating "let's keep it simple". Well it is simple to describe an "ancient Greek kingdom" as an "ancient Greek kingdom." I also believe that there is a pattern here, reguarding your disruptive editing as evidenced by your block-log (quite a list of 3RR violations, disruptive editing, edit-warring etc). I believe that there are a lot to discuss about reguarding this issue and your 'peculiar' editing (warring) and "gaming the system" patterns; these will be examined in their relevant pages. Please, feel free to participate. --LapisExCoelis (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grecomans. -Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]