User talk:John221989

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, John221989, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent discussion with another editor does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.

There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! D P 23:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John221989, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi John221989!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Albania 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see that i already have opened a 3rr investigation ? You are exposing yourself , not me ...

here for your convenience ... https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alexikoua_reported_by_User:John221989

if you have anything to say , say it there .... ! Otherwise this could be called harassment and WP:HOUND (John221989 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

ARBMAC Warning

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

save your time , as you scare no one . I am not in an edit war ... ! I am writing the CIA world factbook and Official 2011 census links , and changing according . If you have anything against me please report me ... however dont write this nonsense when i have made only 1 revert ... !

Your recent editing history at Fan S. Noli 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see that i already have opened a 3rr investigation ? You are exposing yourself , not me ...

here for your convenience ... https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alexikoua_reported_by_User:John221989

if you have anything to say , say it there .... ! Otherwise this could be called harassment and WP:HOUND (John221989 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Fan S. Noli, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC) here for your convenience ... https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alexikoua_reported_by_User:John221989 if you have anything to say , say it there .... ! Otherwise this could be called harassment and WP:HOUND (John221989 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fan S. Noli. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i said to you , you are harassing WP HOUND . Stop spamming my wall when there is a 3rr investigation opened for this matter . Let the mods do their job .

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:John221989 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John221989, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for sockpuppetry and 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. D P 08:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While blocked

Perhaps we can continue the discussion from AN/3RR here. I last asked you this:

So, which part of WP:BRD are you having issues with? You were BOLD and made an edit - it doesn't matter if it was well-sourced or not. Someone else REVERTED it. According to the RULES that you agreed to, you may NEVER re-add that information until you DISCUSS it on the article talkpage and gain WP:CONSENSUS for it. If you're not able to get consensus, then it cannot be added - that's the main rule, and you've been told about it. Also, vandalism has a formal definition and nothing you're saying meets that definition - accusing others of vandalism is ALSO a personal attack when their actions do not meet the definition. Finally, telling you the RULES again and again because you keep breaking them is not considered to be HOUNDING - nor is reporting you for edit-warring when you're breaking the rules so frequently

I'd love to see a response to these points D P 08:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will retract the definition of vandalism as well , from now on i will be a lot more careful with my definitions . However , although it would not be smart at all to object you ,please consider this > We have a person , which is a prime minister , a patriot and a founder of the Albanian orthodox church . We have 1000 sources and even Fan noli himself saying that his name is Fan noli ... We have the fact that this fact is as widely known as the fact that earth is round ... so i did go and change his birth name as it was ( to me at least changing the birth name of someone to another language is vandalism and unethical ) .... ! Then alexikoua although warned and communicated as i did show to you he did choose to revert it again . Note > That sourced text that Dr.K is claiming is written in the origin section ... no one has changed it ... the objection was for the infobox ....

As per WP:CONSENSUS there is no problem . It was me vs Alexikoua ... until Dr.K comes as back ups ... ! But please tell me if i call around 10 friends of mine to the article can i change it ? For such matters consensus is not enough ... especially when the article is intentionally vandalized ( i showed you when opening the first 3rr in the talk page where they were claiming a source showing the name mavromatis but the source was showing the opposite ... isnt that caled vandalism ? )

Please can you explain to me if Dr.K and alexikoua have no relation then why is Dr.K until now acting like alexikoua ? Have you seen alexikoua replying till now ??? In stead we have DR.K that has opened a second 3rr , a sock puppet investigation and a 3rr warning for a matter that started with Alexikoua .... ! May i ask for a sock puppet investigation ? It seems that i am a sock puppet account of my ip ( Lol ) , but at least can we pls see if Alexikoua and Dr.K are the same person , given the fact that DR.K has intervened in a matter that he had absolutely relation to ... as an editor ?

He has WP : HOUNDED ME FROM THE FIRST MOMENT ( after he saw i opened the 3rr for alexikoua )

John221989 (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think i should make some points also because i think what DR.K is doing , did succeed in confusing this whole situation a lot >

1) It was me vs Alexikoua , and as u can see on his talk page he arrogantly ignored what was said to him 2) Dr.K did only intervene after i opened the 3RR investigation , has no reason whatsoever to be here unless he is the same as Alexikoua ... after the 3rr was opened he reverted the whole article 3 times so that i would go to my 3rr and i would be accused as well . 3) Then he opened a separate 3RR investigation 4) Not only that but after that he opens another sock puppet investigation , when in fact you told him that there is already a 3rr so he can comment there ... !

Please do tell me don t you find his behavior very weird when in fact i was only having a dispute with Alexikoua ? For me personally them being the same person , has a high percentage of being a reality .

He has been WP:HOUND me from the first moment . YOU ARE A WITNESS YOURSELF ( he has opened a 3rr investigation , reverted my edits in an article that i had opened a investigation for another user , did spam my wall with warning message although the 3rr was already opened , has opened a sock puppet account investigation in a separate thread as well )

All of these after he knew i opened a 3rr investigation for Alexikoua ... John221989 (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me respond as politely as I can:

If you file a frivolous SPI, you can be blocked. It is incredibly obvious that Dr K and Alexikoua are different people. Stop making those accusations, and see WP:WIAPA
You filed a 3RR report WRONGLY because you were mistaken about policy. It was YOU who were edit-warring, and Dr K was CORRECT to open one
If you call even ONE friend to come to an article to influence "consensus" then you'll be blocked for WP:MEAT.
YOU ARE NOT BEING HOUNDED when someone simply asks you to follow the rules. As per WP:WIAPA, continual such accusations without proof will lead to a block

You need to sit back and recognize this: you're not going to get YOUR preferred reading on this article. If you continue pushing it, I'll be forced to either re-block you indefinitely OR implement a topic ban that will prevent you from editing that article. The next steps are yours. D P 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well i was not saying that i WILL do it DangerousPanda , i just gave an example with the opposite roles to make it more understandable , so in essence i claimed WP:MEAT between Dr.K and alexikoua > Alexikoua Dr.K

And then in the Fan noli article ( and i can give much much more examples ). However if you think that i am not in the right here i rest my case ( i understand that the majority makes the facts and not how well it is sourced , thats how it is in real life so that is how it should be in wikipedia as well ) . Regards , and thank you for your time :) John221989 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article already calls him Fan Noli, so what's the issue? Tell me exactly. D P 14:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the birth name on the info box , it was written Theofanus Stylianos Mavromatis ( Personal details ) pointing to a greek origin of Fan noli , this based on a sourced book that they have . However > That part is already added in the origin paragraph of the article . This book just shows the name of Fan noli in a greek version but as showed from the encyclopedia Britannica and other myriads of sources his name is Theofan Stylian Noli . Now everything is fine .

Also in the talk page some other users ( not alexikoua or Dr.K ) had used a source and claimed that it showed Theofanus Styalianos mavromatis but upon checking the source it was showing Theofan Stilian noli as well .

Everything is fine and let me say that at least Dr.K is a valuable member of wiki . Thank you for your time , and your patience . I reckon that i am partly at blame and i will try to stick to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. My 2 day block is totally deserved , thank you for being patient with me. Regards :) John221989 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a user by the name of Bonender? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me if you have already initiated another sock puppet investigation ? Please wait for the verdict ....! By the way , it proves your WP : HOUND against me , because you have orchestrated a total attack against my wiki personality with the only purpose of eliminating 1 more wiki opinion from the latest dispute in the article about Albania . Which is ? > That you and Alexikoua remove sourced CONSENSUAL material ( CIA world fact book , Official housing census 2011 , united nations , which all confirm it )

It has already been proven some rows above the WP:MEAT between you and Alexikoua .

In addition , i just noticed a very very unethical act from user Alexikoua , which i will forward to an admin .

My opinion and comment was removed from the talk page as demonstrated here , with the purpose of changing artificially the established consensus which is only denied by you and alexikoua ( i don t know yet the wiki definition for it but i am sure you get what i am trying to say ) , while i have a 2 days block verdict on my account ...!

John221989 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

I have now been forced to extend this block further, as you're merely using this talkpage to attack other editors with unfounded accusations. I have also removed your access to this talkpage for the duration of the block in order to prevent such further attacks. D P 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and extended further for block evasion. The block applies to YOU the person, you may not edit, communicate with others, etc. D P 16:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]