User talk:ViamarisBalbi

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
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 • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ViamarisBalbi. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you made a change to an article, André Ayew, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ana Khouri (designer)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ana Khouri (designer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This absence of a viable page is a great reason for this person to not be listed on Khouri. See WP:BLP policy and the WP:NLIST/WP:WTAF guideline and essay. DMacks (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC

It says the page was deleted because it was written in a way that seemed to promote her not because the person is not notable.ViamarisBalbi (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Khirurg. Your recent edit to the page Archimedes appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 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. Khirurg (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Thales of Miletus ‎. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dr. K. 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Thales of Miletus ‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Dr. K. 06:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of Thales of Miletus you will see that on the 2nd of October, Katolophyromai, a few other editors and I reached a consensus about how to write the section regarding Thales's ancestry. Today, all of a sudden, he reverts everything that was achieved through that consensus. Hence the reasons for my "disrespectful" edit reversalViamarisBalbi (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Thales of Miletus. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Dr. K. 07:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked anyone. If you look at the history of Thales of Miletus you will see that on the 2nd of October, Katolophyromai, a few other editors and I reached a consensus about how to write the section regarding Thales's ancestry. Today, all of a sudden, he reverts everything that was achieved through that consensus. Hence the reasons for my "disrespectful" edit reversal ViamarisBalbi (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 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. Khirurg (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:ViamarisBalbi reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 07:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks and 3RR violation on Thales of Miletus, with an obvious nationalist agenda. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see the sample diffs supplied on the edit warring noticeboard. If you continue to edit with a nationalist agenda, you're likely to end up indefinitely blocked, because that is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent editing history at Euclid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 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. Dr. K. 01:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:ViamarisBalbi reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 01:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Kuru (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When others contest your changes, please use the article's talk page to resolve the dispute. "I am not sure if you are Greek, a Nazi, plain antisemitic, or whatever" is not acceptable. I'm afraid that the next block for similar commentary will likely be the last. Kuru (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Users kept on reverting my edits eventhough I took the dispute to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khirurg (but he erased my message) and to the articles talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&action=history (but it was ignored by users). I also have not attacked the author directly as my words say the he "seems" to be behaving like a greek nationlist or antisemitic/nazi. I said that he seemed to be behaving like a greek nationlist/antisemitic nazi because he has reverted THREE of my edits on different pages --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus related to the same topic (Phoenician origin of certain authors and theories) and if you see the history of the 3 articles you will see they kept disregarding my legitimate sources which makes it seemed to be biased behavior and that his behavior must be coming from nationalism/anti-semitism since there is no evidence to the contrary in my edits and he provides weak reasons. In the case of the article of Thales of Miletus editors Dr. K, Khirurg and Katolophyromai reversed an edit that was reached through hard worked consensus a few weeks before (October 2nd) and then got me blocked for trying to reverse it back to the consensual edit. I left the following message on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khirurg but if you look into his history he erased it and never replied: "I have noticed that you reversed my edit on the author of the theory of Atomism according to Strabo and Poseidon, Mochus of Sidon, on the Atomism page as well as my edit on Euclid's place of origin according to Arabian sources. Seems like after you got your way on the Thales phoenician origins now you have gone around to reverse my edits to either say things your way, leave out information, taking away blue links, etc Do I think you are doing those things in good faith? No. You cannot get away all the time with your own ways. Wikipedia is for everybody to add content as long as its sourced. If someone takes the time to find information and sources he should also have the extra right/freedom to put the content as long as its not biased and sources are legitimate and keep his original edit. After reverting 3 of my edits on 3 articles related to the same topic (Phoenicia) I will have to remind you of something. I am not sure if you are Greek, a Nazi, plain antisemitic, or whatever, but ancient Greeks and Romans were very grateful to the Phoenicians in their writings and had no problem admitting their borrowings from them. If you are Greek you should feel ashamed of yourself because your great Greek ancestors would have never tried to undermine the contributions of the Egyptians and Phoenicians to Western Civilization.ViamarisBalbi (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)" Dr. K and Khirurg are clearly friends and edit on the same topics (Ancient Greece) quite a lot. They both use the same tactics mentioned above and when I defend myself against their edits and they dont have substance to back up their edits they resort to reporting me and block me. Wikipedia should be ashamed of blocking editors so fast without looking into the evidence clearly (such as taking the dispute to the talk pages) and for allowing guys with clear political agendas like Dr. K and Khirurg to go around Wikipedia changing edits as they please and see fit and requesting users that challenge them to be blocked ViamarisBalbi (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Please think very carefully how you plan to phrase further unblock requests before you make them. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 14 November 2017 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19766 was submitted on Nov 14, 2017 03:53:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]