Revision as of 02:37, 7 December 2008 editSeicer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,321 edits →December 2008: c← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:39, 7 December 2008 edit undoPankration2008 (talk | contribs)317 edits →December 2008Next edit → | ||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
If you have a dispute, please discuss it on the talk page or seek ]. ] is not acceptable. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 02:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | If you have a dispute, please discuss it on the talk page or seek ]. ] is not acceptable. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 02:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
{{unblock|The dispute had already been resolved on the discussion just before I was blcked.}} |
Revision as of 02:39, 7 December 2008
|
Greek Britons
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Greek Britons. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- You reverted the article back again without even bothering to read the additional references I added. That is completely dishonest. If you don't trust London Greek Radio, The National Federation of Cypriots in the UK the Greek Orthodox Church or Cyprus national broadcasted RIK then you should prove that they are not reliable sources on the history and population numbers of Greeks living in the UK. The consensus around all of these organisations is that there are over 400,000 Greek Britons and 300,000 of them reside in Greater London. --Pankration2008 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Calculating the number of Cypriot-born people in the UK who are likely to be Greek based on the population distribution of the island is original research. I notified you of this on the article talk page but you still went ahead and restored it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then I will remove those calculations. The other estimates from the above organisations are still valid and are not original research.--Pankration2008 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point is that all you've done is state the name of an organisation. That doesn't constitute a reference. Please see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Neither does simply stating "2001 UK Census". Please provide full details including a URL if possible. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point is that all you've done is state the name of an organisation. That doesn't constitute a reference. Please see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then I will remove those calculations. The other estimates from the above organisations are still valid and are not original research.--Pankration2008 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Calculating the number of Cypriot-born people in the UK who are likely to be Greek based on the population distribution of the island is original research. I notified you of this on the article talk page but you still went ahead and restored it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Cypriot British
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Cypriot British. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have added nothing of kind. All of my information is from reliable community sources. You are distorting history and numerical data which you simply do not understand.--Pankration2008 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but it's clear that this edit is not fully referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit war? More like vandalism of an article I contributed to by someone who does not understand the content and does not even have the sense to follow the links to other Misplaced Pages articles liked to it which provide references to the data and doesn't have a clue that the National Federation of Cypriots only represents Greek Cypriots therefore the 300,000 Cypriots it represents are all Greek Britons. --Pankration2008 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Cypriot British. 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. seicer | talk | contribs 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Regarding recent edits to Cypriot British, I will attempt to explain why the following edits are not acceptable.
- This edit features the removal of reliable sources and text attributed to the citations with original research and unverified text. In addition, Facebook groups are not reliable sources.
- I'm not for certain what this reference is attributed to.
- Per before, Facebook groups are not reliable sources.
If you have a dispute, please discuss it on the talk page or seek dispute resolution. Edit warring is not acceptable. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Pankration2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The dispute had already been resolved on the discussion just before I was blcked.Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The dispute had already been resolved on the discussion just before I was blcked. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=The dispute had already been resolved on the discussion just before I was blcked. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=The dispute had already been resolved on the discussion just before I was blcked. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}