User talk:Helenaworld

Welcome and introduction[edit]

Hi, Helenaworld. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get Best of luck! Chzz ► 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Helenaworld/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation concerning you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justice Forever. You can go there and make your case. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Northern Cyprus has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. The inclusion of the phrases "Greek Cypriots migrated" and "concrete and persisiting links" is probably not very accurate. There will still be many who are around the age of 45-70 who will have those links and, more importantly, could do nothing about it even if they wished to. Migrated could be seen as an inflammatory comment as we all know that it is not migration when people are forced to leave as it is more "Forced displacement" or "Ethnic cleansing". Chaosdruid (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ECHR uses just the phrase I used: "concrete and persisiting links" in its 2 decisions over Cyprus property issue (Ctrl + F, and write "concrete and persisiting links", you will see the phrase in the decision):

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=868631&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=868633&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 Helenaworld (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I understand that as I have read the material you have put in as well as all the other editors additions/removals. My point is that the edit summary should really only have been something like the preceeding ones and the one after it. "(ECHR (27.5.2010): Conclusion" or "(ECHR (27.5.2010):Explanation" would have been enough, especially on articles where things can get so easily out of hand.

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosdruid: "There will still be many who are around the age of 45-70 who will have those links". Me: "ECHR defined those links you mentioned as EMOTIONAL links and decided that those links are not important and real. And that's why rejected the 2 Greek Cypriot applications immediately" Helenaworld (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I will write the edit summaries just like you described. I hope, you have no objection to the content of my edit. Helenaworld (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) And my point is that even though some uninvolved body makes such a statement it does not stop any reader/editor between those ages from seeing it and reacting badly as they probably do have emotional ties to property they were forced to leave. This is not limited to one side, I know people who have been forced out on both sides - although I know many more from the Turkish Cypriot community.

None to the edits as long as they are factual and correct Chaosdruid (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Helenaworld (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking-admin seems not to examine enough the sockpuppetry (he claimed!) and other issues. He did not write any warning message above to me. He did not want to learn anything he suspected. He did never contact with me, and ask about what he thinks...

Decline reason:

Your unblock request is therefore the opportunity to try and prove us wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 19 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking-admin did not examine enough the sockpuppetry (he claimed!) and other issues.
He did not write any warning message above to me.
He did not want to learn anything he suspected.
He did never contact with me, and ask about what he thinks
He claimed the similarity of edit patterns whereas could not prove explicitely where these patterns are.
His ambiguity and his contactlessness towards me should give sufficient hint for a fair Wiki-admin.

Decline reason:

I just reverified. Checkuser verified sockpuppet of banned user. It doesn't help much that you created yet another account one minute after making this request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:05, 19 August 2010 (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.