User talk:Geromasis

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Listen, I rethinked it once again. I think both Second Zawiyah, Zlitan and Sabha should all be merged into one article. Since it is obvious now that all three were raids, and all three ended in failure since there have been no reports of fighting from eather town for three-four days now. But it is obvious they were all co-ordinated, so they were connected. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi[edit]

Hi

After your edits to the article I have changed the lead to match your opinion, and continued a discussion on the article talk page Talk:Muammar_Gaddafi#No_longer_head_of_state adding a query on what that section should be called. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Hi

Unfortunately it is not up to you or me to decide what is right, Wikipedia depends on editors finding WP:CONSENSUS.

There is also a policy of WP:BRD. A bold change is reverted and then discussed to find that consensus. In this case the bold change was to the section title that I had chosen which was then reverted by me and discussed on the talk page. As yet there is still no consensus for yuor chaning it to my suggested header as no-one else has said anything, 2 out of 5 is not really consensus!

We also have a rule of WP:3RR as well as rules on WP:EDITWAR. Try to at least read these and then follow them. Unnecessary reverting and changing is not the way to go. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You create a section with a title completely different from the content of the section. It is an obligation to change it. Your section only show the loss of recognision and does not even talk about loss of political power. Two different things.--Geromasis (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. Political power does not end at the country's borders. The section deals with the initial international decisions regarding the alleged crimes and the issuing of the ICC arrest warrant, it then goes onto international opinion, the NATO resolution, and the decision to publicly announce that those countries no longer regard him as the head of state. There is also the statement by the justice minister that says that Gaddafi is not part of the government. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the thing you quote has an effet on Gaddafi political power inside Libya and that's what matters. You are speaking about international recognition, that's all. You "lose of political power" is untrue and on the same basis than your previous "Fall from power". Both untrue in the present situation.--Geromasis (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Gaddafi and it will contain everything about Gaddafi, not just what went/is going on in Libya. If you do not understand that then perhaps you do not understand the principles of Wiki or of encyclopaedias in general. Information about his dealings when abroad are throughout the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems about information about abroad in his page but it was just the wrong title with no content to back this title.--Geromasis (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel death toll removal[edit]

Sorry, you missunderstood my intentions. It wasn't my intent to remove the sourced information on the rebel death toll. I only removed it for a moment while reverting EllswortkSK's edits. I was in the process of returning it back, with a little bit of more wording, when I got an edit conflict warning that you already reinsirted it. We ok? :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would check my edit history I am one who is all for sources on rebel or loyalist death tolls :D. You can clearly see that per this edit [1]. :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems--Geromasis (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geromasis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No reason to block someone who remove vandalism Geromasis (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{unblock|I have every right to place a sourced and reliabe content here. They can't delete it or it is vandalism Geromasis (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Please don't remove declined unblock requests. Please read WP:VANDALISM to understand why you are wrong. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I undertsand that I am right. Anyway it is just outragoeus to try to block me, who is trying to put sourced information while letting some IP user doing as many undid as he wants.

July 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geromasis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wrong again I did not revert anythingGeromasis (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you're pretty obviously edit warring. Let's see, initial edit, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 attempts to re-add it after it had been removed by a long list of other editors. This is patently absurd - you blew 3RR out of the water, five times over, and claim that you didn't revert anything? I'd probably have blocked you for a week or so, 48 hours seems quite generous, especially given a block for the same thing just over a week ago. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yes, you did, multiple times, as I think a quick review of your contributions today will show. Your "opponent" did to, but hasn't done anything since my warning at the article; if they remove the sentence you've continually added, they'll be blocked too. There's a talk page, you need to use it when there's a disagreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to include the article name in the block message. For the benefit of the reviewing admin: Abdul Fatah Younis . --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]