User talk:Brasilian Prince
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Brasilian Prince, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Organisation of the Islamic Conference. 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!
John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Your message on my talk
[edit]Replied there. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- And again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justice Forever for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Brasilian Prince (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet. Also, the blocking admin ignores and rules out all the other admin's views on his sockpuppet claim: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever (See the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" parts. Though all the admins (other than the blocking admin HelloAnnyong) opposed block, he did not care what the others' opininons are
Decline reason:
It looks unanimous to me. Checkuser was declined on technical grounds ('stale'), but there were no admins opposed that I can see. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2011 (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 am not sure if this is technically possible but I would support an unblock if this user agrees on 1RR rule on Cyprus related topics and to avoid WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, respect WP:RS and not clutter talkpages with arguments ad-infinitum. I have interacted with this user before in many of his incarnations and I can't say he is all bad. His contributions are good overall, except he tends to edit-war a bit too much at times and, in past sock-incarnations, clutter article talkpages while everyone else disagrees with them. If he gets out of these habits he could become a good contributor. Maybe a mentorship program with suitable editing restrictions could help. Something along the lines of a sock-anonymous program. As for their socking past, given that the rest of the socks are stale, I say forgive and forget. Now I understand that for a user to reform they have to acknowledge their past. This needs a Gordian knot-type of solution IMO. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- It would probably take an acknowledgement of the socking, and a full renunciation of it. I agree that some sockmasters do produce good edits at times. It's that so many of them have another side that cancels out the good (and increases the workload on the sock department). Peridon (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I fully agree. This is the reason I qualified my support for unblocking. But you made some great points and I agree with your approach. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- It would probably take an acknowledgement of the socking, and a full renunciation of it. I agree that some sockmasters do produce good edits at times. It's that so many of them have another side that cancels out the good (and increases the workload on the sock department). Peridon (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Brasilian Prince (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My blocking came into force when I force the realities in Cyprus island: Look the revision history (http en wikipedia org w index php titleNorthern_Cyprus action history) A CLEAR POV by the word "DEPENDENT"! Note: NORTH CYPRUS (TURKISH CYPRIOTS) HAD AND HAS ITS OWN MILITARY FORCE, AND RESISTED TO GREEK CYPRIOT ATTACKS DURING 1963-1974 BY THIS MILITARY FORCE TILL TURKEY'S ARMY CAME TO RESCUE TURKISH CYPRIOTS. So, the word "DEPENDENT" ignores the CAPACITY OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS! *Athenean: (the EU doesn't keep 30,000 troops stationed in Greece, does it? Source says "heavily dependent" but I will leave it to "dependent" as a compromise) *Brasilian Prince: (NC takes some help from Turkey. OK. NC has revenue of "USD 800 Millions + Tourism" in 2011 in "Banking+Education+Tourism". Help of T to NC is less than help of EU-IMF to Greece. Is it suitable to write Greece is DEPENDENT on EU? Greeks protest EU!) *Athenean: (it's dependent all right - witness the recent protests about the smaller budget from ankara) *Brasilian Prince: ("dependent" is overloaded: NC has revenues of "USD 800 Millions" from Banking+Education in 2011. Also, Tourism has 17000 beds capacity in 2011. NC's "(revenue - debt)/population" ratio is good. NChas the most expensive tourism investments in island)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.. You've been given full explanation of what you need to do to become unblocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (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.
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]|
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brasilian Prince for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:OrganizationOfIslamicCooperation.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:OrganizationOfIslamicCooperation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
