Please leave a message.
Hello GreenEcho, Thank you for your message on my talk page. Of course as an administrator I cannot revert to a preferred version of the article, and as the dispute is not over, I cannot unprotect the page. I do ask you to try and work this dispute out on the talk page. A fully protected article goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, and it makes the article stagnant. So the quicker the resolution comes, the better for everyone. Good luck! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Progressive Socialist Party appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Thank you. ←
George [
talk
18:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
2008 conflict in Lebanon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ←
George [
talk
18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to come to the two relevant talk pages and discuss our disputes, or I'm going to have to move to have you blocked from editting. ← George [ talk 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
PeterSymonds
(talk)
20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hiram111 and GreenEcho, please explain the reasons for your edits on the article talk page, and stop reverting the article until consensus is reached. I can't know which of your edits is better if you don't explain your reasons on the talk page. Thanks. I'm also posting a message to Hiram111. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You probably would have been better off contacting someone else - as the banner at top of my talk page clearly states, I'm not around very often. We also get a lot of reports at the Incidents board, as you probably noticed, and occasionally one gets overlooked. He has been spoken to by administrators about his recent edits - see User talk:Hiram111. If the situation continues, feel free to contact another, more active administrator, or post another report on ANI. Sorry for the delays you've been having. Hersfold non-admin( t/ a/ c) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on the Walid Jumblatt article talk page concerning the statement you continue to insert in the article, which other editors have found to violate Wikipedia's policy on living persons. ← George [ talk 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, GreenEcho. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ← George [ talk 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2008 conflict in Lebanon. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. ←
George [
talk
19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your report of User:137.71.23.54; first of all, the user hadn't been warned since June. Second, the user deleted some text, which is not the same as simple vandalism. Though the text did contain some citations, it also contained some questionable language that may be in violation of our npov policy. I've warned the user to use edit summaries and propose major changes to the talk page first, but please don't report content conflicts as vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing that out, I'm sure I did though. Oh well, I have now. -- ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho, regardless of your choler, you must not remove things from the Talk page of an article. I know we have butted heads (and continue to) on the page Druze, but this is different. You really must not do that, it is vandalism. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that your intent was not vandalism, it is still unacceptable to refactor others' talk comments (including templates). In essence, it appears that you are using the text of the template to push your own view in the matter. When the RFC discussion has been opened, you will have an opportunity to present your case. But that should be the format, and not the template itself. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The editors at Talk:2008 conflict in Lebanon#Third Opinion are rapidly reaching a consensus. If you have anything to add, please do so now. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho, you continue to make aggravating reverts... aggravating because you revert things other than your intended reverts. You need to be careful when you edit. Don't just hit "Revert", examine the edit that was made first. I clearly noted in my edit summary what I had done and you just removed grammar corrections, link updates and other information.
Is there no way to come to some kind of agreement on Druze and/or Hakim whereby we cite both sources? I'm trying to be reasonable. We both have citations and you simply refuse to respond or discuss. Let's keep our disagreement outside of the introductions so that the pages don't get locked from editing.
In fact, I tried to do this with Hakim, leaving your edit about the allegations that the Druze deified Hakim inside of the text while adding that other scholars disagree. This is called consensus: without it, they are going to lock the pages again. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard. You are welcome to give your own opinion there. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR at Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey GreenEcho, actually i'm not using sockets but simply using different browsers,and I forgot to logout from another old account, anyway its too bad that this will not get me blocked, since if i used the Hiram111 account we would have got to the same result, and the third account is not me,though its not an important issue.
I didn't request the protection of the page to personally target you, but simply because you removed cited edits anyway, I only requested for the page to be protected for a definite time which is a week , hoping that during this week we can discuss the references I used and maybe I can provide my other references concerning the issue, I hope we can have a constructive civil debate on the twelvers page and get to consensus t.c « Hiram111Δ TalK Δ 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How exactly am I abusing multiple accounts?
Decline reason:
Per FayssalF below. You've already been extended what seems to me to be quite a bit of latitude to have multiple accounts for multiple areas. Along with that latitude can some restrictions: namely, you have to stick to those accounts. It is okay for people to create new accounts for a "fresh start" within reason, but this account was created deceptively: note, for instance, your first edit with this account, clearly designed to avoid suspicion that you are a returning user. You did something similar with User:Enforcing Neutrality. Even if we accept that it was legitimate to create these accounts, it was much less legitimate to create two of them, and the fact that you edits overlapped with these last two accounts (even if not on any specific pages) makes things even worse, and on top of that these "fresh starts" were awfully close together - just a bit over two weeks apart.
Based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn, you are allowed to have two active accounts: one for Islam/Lebanon/Pakistan topics / regional, religious, political subjects in that area, and one main account for non-controversial topics (Fayassal cited "music, sports, popular articles and AfDs"). I have no idea about the third account but if that one's blocked and you think it shouldn't be, you need to make an unblock request there or take it up with Fayassal, because the details aren't public. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as Fayassal's concerned, the previous use of sockpuppets is important enough that you should not be creating new accounts to avoid scrutiny. If you want a "fresh start", the best that is reasonable for you to do is to use the User:NAccount account and request a name change at WP:CHU. Mango juice talk 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
GreenEcho ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't have three accounts left. FayssalF left me NAccount, which, for the thousandth time, I don't want. I didn't spend all these hours doing research, especially with Enforcing Neutrality, to have it just fade away. Me mentioning "fresh start" is an overstatement. I didn't do anything wrong in the first place. I just had too many accounts, but none of these accounts were used abusively in the same article to be considered sockpuppets. Block all my accounts and allow me to edit with GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality peacefully.
Decline reason:
I am marking this block reviewed, since FayssalF has commuted it from indef to 13 days. If you want to contest the shortened block, then file a new unblock request. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
I don't know if this will help with all of your concerns, but you can ask that the accounts offered to you be renamed. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to apologize for any inconvenience and time wasted on this issue. I don't think I have done anything wrong having multiple accounts that have not been used abusively, but I apologize if I have. I just want to operate GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality, because, again, I have spent much time and effort doing research for articles currently in mediation. GreenEcho ( talk) 19:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You've just been blocked indefinitely. He are the details. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Please leave a message.
Hello GreenEcho, Thank you for your message on my talk page. Of course as an administrator I cannot revert to a preferred version of the article, and as the dispute is not over, I cannot unprotect the page. I do ask you to try and work this dispute out on the talk page. A fully protected article goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, and it makes the article stagnant. So the quicker the resolution comes, the better for everyone. Good luck! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Progressive Socialist Party appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Thank you. ←
George [
talk
18:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
2008 conflict in Lebanon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ←
George [
talk
18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to come to the two relevant talk pages and discuss our disputes, or I'm going to have to move to have you blocked from editting. ← George [ talk 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
PeterSymonds
(talk)
20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hiram111 and GreenEcho, please explain the reasons for your edits on the article talk page, and stop reverting the article until consensus is reached. I can't know which of your edits is better if you don't explain your reasons on the talk page. Thanks. I'm also posting a message to Hiram111. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You probably would have been better off contacting someone else - as the banner at top of my talk page clearly states, I'm not around very often. We also get a lot of reports at the Incidents board, as you probably noticed, and occasionally one gets overlooked. He has been spoken to by administrators about his recent edits - see User talk:Hiram111. If the situation continues, feel free to contact another, more active administrator, or post another report on ANI. Sorry for the delays you've been having. Hersfold non-admin( t/ a/ c) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on the Walid Jumblatt article talk page concerning the statement you continue to insert in the article, which other editors have found to violate Wikipedia's policy on living persons. ← George [ talk 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, GreenEcho. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ← George [ talk 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2008 conflict in Lebanon. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. ←
George [
talk
19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your report of User:137.71.23.54; first of all, the user hadn't been warned since June. Second, the user deleted some text, which is not the same as simple vandalism. Though the text did contain some citations, it also contained some questionable language that may be in violation of our npov policy. I've warned the user to use edit summaries and propose major changes to the talk page first, but please don't report content conflicts as vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing that out, I'm sure I did though. Oh well, I have now. -- ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho, regardless of your choler, you must not remove things from the Talk page of an article. I know we have butted heads (and continue to) on the page Druze, but this is different. You really must not do that, it is vandalism. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that your intent was not vandalism, it is still unacceptable to refactor others' talk comments (including templates). In essence, it appears that you are using the text of the template to push your own view in the matter. When the RFC discussion has been opened, you will have an opportunity to present your case. But that should be the format, and not the template itself. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The editors at Talk:2008 conflict in Lebanon#Third Opinion are rapidly reaching a consensus. If you have anything to add, please do so now. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho, you continue to make aggravating reverts... aggravating because you revert things other than your intended reverts. You need to be careful when you edit. Don't just hit "Revert", examine the edit that was made first. I clearly noted in my edit summary what I had done and you just removed grammar corrections, link updates and other information.
Is there no way to come to some kind of agreement on Druze and/or Hakim whereby we cite both sources? I'm trying to be reasonable. We both have citations and you simply refuse to respond or discuss. Let's keep our disagreement outside of the introductions so that the pages don't get locked from editing.
In fact, I tried to do this with Hakim, leaving your edit about the allegations that the Druze deified Hakim inside of the text while adding that other scholars disagree. This is called consensus: without it, they are going to lock the pages again. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard. You are welcome to give your own opinion there. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR at Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey GreenEcho, actually i'm not using sockets but simply using different browsers,and I forgot to logout from another old account, anyway its too bad that this will not get me blocked, since if i used the Hiram111 account we would have got to the same result, and the third account is not me,though its not an important issue.
I didn't request the protection of the page to personally target you, but simply because you removed cited edits anyway, I only requested for the page to be protected for a definite time which is a week , hoping that during this week we can discuss the references I used and maybe I can provide my other references concerning the issue, I hope we can have a constructive civil debate on the twelvers page and get to consensus t.c « Hiram111Δ TalK Δ 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How exactly am I abusing multiple accounts?
Decline reason:
Per FayssalF below. You've already been extended what seems to me to be quite a bit of latitude to have multiple accounts for multiple areas. Along with that latitude can some restrictions: namely, you have to stick to those accounts. It is okay for people to create new accounts for a "fresh start" within reason, but this account was created deceptively: note, for instance, your first edit with this account, clearly designed to avoid suspicion that you are a returning user. You did something similar with User:Enforcing Neutrality. Even if we accept that it was legitimate to create these accounts, it was much less legitimate to create two of them, and the fact that you edits overlapped with these last two accounts (even if not on any specific pages) makes things even worse, and on top of that these "fresh starts" were awfully close together - just a bit over two weeks apart.
Based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn, you are allowed to have two active accounts: one for Islam/Lebanon/Pakistan topics / regional, religious, political subjects in that area, and one main account for non-controversial topics (Fayassal cited "music, sports, popular articles and AfDs"). I have no idea about the third account but if that one's blocked and you think it shouldn't be, you need to make an unblock request there or take it up with Fayassal, because the details aren't public. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as Fayassal's concerned, the previous use of sockpuppets is important enough that you should not be creating new accounts to avoid scrutiny. If you want a "fresh start", the best that is reasonable for you to do is to use the User:NAccount account and request a name change at WP:CHU. Mango juice talk 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
GreenEcho ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't have three accounts left. FayssalF left me NAccount, which, for the thousandth time, I don't want. I didn't spend all these hours doing research, especially with Enforcing Neutrality, to have it just fade away. Me mentioning "fresh start" is an overstatement. I didn't do anything wrong in the first place. I just had too many accounts, but none of these accounts were used abusively in the same article to be considered sockpuppets. Block all my accounts and allow me to edit with GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality peacefully.
Decline reason:
I am marking this block reviewed, since FayssalF has commuted it from indef to 13 days. If you want to contest the shortened block, then file a new unblock request. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
I don't know if this will help with all of your concerns, but you can ask that the accounts offered to you be renamed. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to apologize for any inconvenience and time wasted on this issue. I don't think I have done anything wrong having multiple accounts that have not been used abusively, but I apologize if I have. I just want to operate GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality, because, again, I have spent much time and effort doing research for articles currently in mediation. GreenEcho ( talk) 19:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You've just been blocked indefinitely. He are the details. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)