User talk:GreekWarrior

Welcome!

Hello GreekWarrior, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Courtkittie (talk) July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.


 * Erm, who the hell are you?

La Prensa
Hello ! I just noticed your message, sorry for the little delay before the answer. Very glad to see you in the community, that's a very positive step for everybody !

Regarding the subject at hand, it is obvious that your knowledge of the topic is very good, as are your feelings over the matter. Given the policy of Wikipedia, however, only the "knowledge" part is allowed in, not the "feelings", and it can sometimes be honestly difficult to tell one from the other.

If you see that example of the typical difference between your view of the article, you can notice that the version which I am reverting to has a more general and nuanced view of the matter ("However, the paper was also critical of the nascent ruling junta which succeeded Somoza"...); your version tends to feel like it aims at demonstrating something; for instance, the beginning:
 * It is now largely known now, that La Prensa recieved large amounts of funding from The CIA. It espoused a violent overthrowal of the regime and fully supported the American Proxy Army, the Contras, in their attacks against Nicaraguan Governmental Targets and Civilian Infrastructure (CIA Director William Casey's orders to attack 'Soft Targets').

Compare to something like (I know nothing about the topic so you'll have to provide the actual information)
 * La Prensa was founded in X by X, who was X (like, a well-known right-wing politician, a Human right activist, a religious personlity ?). It was intended as a [political / news / ...] publication (perhaps put something like the motto of the paper here, the way its director described it, ...)
 * It had the following stance upon the following topics. [Before/during/after] the following event, it took the following stance, notably saying this when that happened.
 * That, this and that led to suspicions from those that it had pro-US sympathies; accusations of [being funded by the CIA/ watching Foxnews too much / ...] arose from these people (citation/reference if possible).
 * In (long afterward), the release of the following documents (citation/reference) proved that the following accusations were [true/false/to be nuanced]

I hope that you see what I mean. I would encourage you to start a new section on the talk page of the article, suggest a version, and see how it shapes. It is interesting, for instance, to see what sort of things which seem straightforward to you can be difficult or dubious for others, and se when and how explanations, references, etc. are necessary. I can help if necessary.

Have you seen Ken Loach's Carla's Song ?

Thank you for the spirit of it ! Good work and cheers ! Rama 13:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, I'll get around to changing my draft as soon as possible. Btw, I haven't seen 'Carla's song', but I intend to when I have the time. Thanks for the advice on how to structure my redraft as well.--GreekWarrior 13:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You called Nikos Sampson 'a good man'????? With an attitude like that, no wonder there's nwever going to be any hope of reconciliation on Cyprus. I take it you're pro-Enosis, fanatically anti-Turk, and want to ethnically cleanse Cyprus of everything non-Greek.......or am I being too subtle in my observation? --User:Expatkiwi 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

From a Greek Cypriot in the US
Dude you should not be such an enosist. Those who supported that dream destroyed the unity of Cyprus by not respecting the 1960 constitution. Then the Turks took it a step further.

I am opposed to the Annan plan, and as far as the EU problems with the Turks - let them answer to their own crimes. They have a lot to come to terms with first. (UNFanatic 04:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Your statements about Turks
Your recent statements about Turks (,   and anything similar) are absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I am removing them. Do not attempt to replace them. Do not repeat any similar inflammatory statements about any other person or group or nation of persons. This is a final warning. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect you are a sockpuppet for Expatapologist.


 * I assure you that I am not. I'm afraid I'll have to block you from editing for a short time if you persist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As you repeated the same xenophobic rant, I have blocked you for a short time to show that I mean it. Because of the nature of the offence, I shall also have to protect your talk page from editing. You may email me at minorityreport@bluebottle.com --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a notice about your block on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your block is now finished and this page is unprotected. Please feel welcome o use your account for all purposes except the kind of offensive speech that blocked you for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
You need to source statements. Not the Bible or Qur'an (you should tell which translation for either)... however, what you did was interpret primary text material... which is something we don't do. Biblical and Qur'anic scholars do that. I left a message on the talk page which you must look at to that regard. You need to quote notable sources on this. Your own interpretation of the two books is not allowed since wikipedia is not a repository for original thought. gren グレン 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I typically prefer not being called an idiot. Your interpretations are not common knowledge so please read about verifiability, sources and all that jazz.  As a start referemce the Ali Sina page or the Ibn Warraq book... that is the minimum you must do.  Using passive voice is a problem because it's sourceless.  gren グレン 03:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop being a racist bigot
You've made your anti-Turkish/anti-Islamic agenda very clear. I suggest you find something more constructive to do with your life than try and spread it here. You seem very similar to Digenis Akritas/Chomsky Fan who trawled the cyprus-forum.com forums, is this you? --A.Garnet 00:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Muslims are not a race, secondly Moose you little apologist for Islam, Muslims have NO guarantee or 'Right' not to have their satanic religion subjected to critical analysis.


 * No i'm not Moose. You are not showing critical analysis, you are a little hate filled boy and nothing else. --A.Garnet 12:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Who cares? You couldn't answer my allegations, stop accusing people of Islamophobia, it makes about as much sense as Naziphobia. Who are you anyway? --GreekWarrior 17:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As I have said, you are not capable of critical analysis, you can criticse but not analyse, since your analysis is based on hate filled propogandist rubbish. --A.Garnet 21:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok my monolingual english friend (as are all the other lazy english who come to Cyprus), seeing as you don't have the guts to tell me whom you are from the Forum, I will leave it at that, but it is indicative of your rather pathetic and weak willed personality if you don't even have the guts to admit whom you are to a 17 year old. But that is besides the point, when I make a point on Wikipedia I back it up with verses from the Queeran, I do not need to write a diatribe, because the Quran speaks for itself when it comes to Critical Analysis. The fact not one of the so called 'scholarly' Muslims who love to deride Ali Sina can answer his allegations against Mohammed shows this point up perfectly. --GreekWarrior 00:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I have given you enough attention. Myself and others have already had the benefit of witnessing what a pathetic waste of time it is in engaging in discussion with you. --A.Garnet 01:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't seriously believe that anyone is going to come and look at this talkpage and think "Hmmm.... A. Garnet didn't just come onto a random person's user page and start randomly throwing insults and abuse about Islamophobia. In fact, I believe he was totally justified in making a series of random, nonsensical allegations based on totally apologetic authors for whom the terms 'dhimmi' and 'we will subjugate you' give them the same result as popping 90 viagra pills. Now go and jack off over a picture of Mo, I'm sure his rotting bones will appreciate it.--GreekWarrior 05:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I do think A. Garnet didn't just come onto this racist's (yes racist can be used for someone like you, but if you don't like that how about bigot, hatefilled ignorant child, nazi, extremist whatever suits your little intolerant heart) user page and start randomly throwing isults and abuse. In fact, I believe he was totally justified in his comments about you.  I applaud him and repeat them to you.  Wake up dude, your heart is filled with so much hatred you can't see clearly.  By the way I read your comment about how the rest of Europe ows a great deal to Greek civilization.  I, oddly, agree with you.  But it's not just Europe, the whole world has benefitted from the wisdom of the Greeks.  It is intresting to note,however, that the Greek texts were first translated into Arabic by muslim scholars before making it to the rest of Europe.  Let go of the hate.

Edit-summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:


 * [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]]

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Izehar 19:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Continued unacceptable conduct
Since your block for extreme hate speech, you have not justified your presence here. On 21 December, you made a personal comment to User:Grenavitar referring to his "idiocy on the Criticism of Islam section". You also made an extremely partisan comment on User talk:Michael Voytinsky, indicating that you're interested in pushing a pro-Christian or at least anti-Muslim point of view. You say of muslimes: "These people are evil. Pure evil."

I'm going to block you from editing for a good long time so that you can take on board the fact that Wikipedia will not tolerate such behavior. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you again. Your first post after your block had expired was a message on a black editor's page (Deeceevoice) saying, "Proud to be WHITE!", and discussing how that user had "won the hatred of an entire nation of people". As Tony Sidaway says, this sort of thing will not be tolerated here. &mdash; Matt Crypto 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it, Matt. — BrianSmithson 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Είσαι πολύ μπούφος πάντως. Πήγες και είπες "Περήφανος που είμαι ΛΕΥΚΟΣ" σε μαύρο και λες ότι οι Μουσουλμάνοι είναι ΟΛΟΙ κακοί κλπ. Κοίτα να σταματήσεις, διαφορετικά θα το φας το μπαν - δεν τη γλυτώνεις. Ρατσιστικές και αντιϊσλαμικές δηλώσεις απαγορεύονται σε multicultural μέρη όπως εδώ, και κατά τη γνώμη μου, είναι αντικοινωνικές. Η φραγή σου έχει λήξει - ΜΗΝ ξαναπείς κάτι τέτοιο ξανά, γιατί η επόμενή σου φραγή, το πιο πιθανό, είναι να είναι πάνω από ένα μήνα. -Latinus 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My ideas are not against socialism at all, Islam is not socialism, in fact, Islam stands against everything socialism stands for, do you think Muslims tolerate other religions and Atheists and Agnostics while in their countries? Of course not, and I don't care whether I am against multiculturalism, multiculturalism has failed, Muslims hate us, we cannot change that. I am not a racist as well, I am proud to be European, what is wrong with that? --GreekWarrior 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Must you hate them though; I thought you were a Christian (love thy neighbour as thyself). Even if you can't help yourself, must you attack them on Wikipedia? Leave it - there is no justification for behaving in that way and you oughtn't. Muslims do not hate us - only the extremists do. As for socialism, don't forget Libya's interesting (theoretical) combination of Marxism, Maoism and Islam. I think you should also know that Jews preferred living in Islamic states to Western Europe. Koranic law requires the toleration of Biblical religions. There was no Spanish inquisition there.

To get back to the point, can you stop being rude? If you want to avoid getting banned, then you will have to. Latinus 23:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, i am sorry, but I do not agree with what is the Quran, I will be more tolerant of them but to be honest many Muslims I have met on the internet are hardly tolerant of any critical analysis of Islam. btw, do you know anything about byzantium? i am doing a article on Byzantine Medicine

Re your edit to American Atheists. Please cite your sources for the quote, and then rather place it in the Ellen Johnson article. Please also read Neutral point of view before contributing further. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-21t13:15z

Your edits to Allahu Akbar
This message is regarding the page Allahu Akbar. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. &mdash;Wayward Talk 02:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist atheist
Removing Articles for deletion notices is considered a form of vandalism and can result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not do this. If you want to argue that the article should be kept, follow the link and make your case in the debate. David | Talk 19:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack
Wikipedia has a policy of No Personal attacks. Your edit here contains a plain personal attack. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David | Talk 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Evils of Atheism
Well, first of all, your definition of "atheism" is apparently ideosyncratic. The generally-accepted definition is a superset of both your "non-believer" and "atheist" definitions, encompassing anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of a deity. The fact that some atheists are indeed rather strident about their opinions is beside the point.

Second of all, if your definition of "atheism" were accurate, then the term "fundamentalist atheist" would be redundant, which doesn't make a good case for keeping that article in Wikipedia.

Third of all, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~). Powers 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Trolling again?
Can you explain this ? I should probably break it to you now, but anti-social behaviour like that is not tolerated here, and you will end up being banned, make no mistake about it. Stop now, or I personally will start an RfC on you. You are giving Greeks a bad name; I suggest you read WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, propaganda, or making hate speeches. Latinus 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for forty-eight hours
I have reviewed your recent edits on Wikipedia, particularly your blanking of valid AfD attempts, your vandalism of articles, and your inflammatory attacks on non-Christian editors. You are blocked for forty-eight hours in the first instance while I and other administrators review your case and decide what to do. You may follow the case on WP:AN and respond here or in email to minorityreport@bluebottle.com. Be civil or, as before, this page will be protected and you will have to proceed in email. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Six months block for serious disruption
I've spent some twenty-four hours deliberating over what to do about your behavior, given evidence and heard comments from about half a dozen editors. Not one of them failed to express grave concern about your behavior. You are being blocked because of:


 * Frequent expressions racism and religious bigotry delivered in a manner clearly calculated to offend
 * Vandalism
 * Blanking an AfD
 * Failure to respond to blocks by modifying your behavior. You just pick up where you left off. No sign of improvement.
 * When blocked for bigoted attacks, you continued to use your talk page for such bigoted statements until this was protected.

Come back in six months time prepared to uphold "No personal attacks", "Civility", and "Neutral point of view" and you'll be accepted, without question, as a Wikipedian. Your personal beliefs are your own affair but while using Wikipedia resources you will treat all men and women at all times as your brothers and sisters. In return your right to edit free from molestation will be upheld.

Meditate on this and, if you have a change of heart meanwhile, email an administrator, citing these words and the preceding paragraph, and referring to WP:AN of January 28, and if you accept the terms of Wikipedia then you will be unblocked and welcomed. It is not you that we spurn, but your damaging behavior which has harmed Wikipedia.

This is not a punishment. We would do the same if someone acted towards you as you have acted towards other Wikipedians. We must take into account the need of us all to work together. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Hellenicrepublic1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hellenicrepublic1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
As you have blocked previously, you already know that personal attacks will get you blocked. This is a personal attack. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And for once I didn't even do anything! Adam 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

request unblock
<> My IP address is: 86.140.42.67 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • [ block log ])

I need to post on the Request for Arbritation Page.

Unblocked
You have been unblocked per your request to take your dispute to the Arbitration Committee. Please do not edit any other pages, or you will be reblocked. Nacon kantari 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been invited to comment on your Arbcom page. Here's a small request: Could you please give a statement there clarifying your identity with "NickOfCyprus" and providing a representative list of some of the IP addresses you've used? That would save us others some trouble digging out all the evidence ourselves. I've been going through some of the old edits that I believe were yours, and I must say some of the stuff on Byzantine culture was indeed pretty good. I'll include a list of some for the Arbcom to consider. In light of that stuff, I guess I would not oppose some kind of blocklifting arrangement under appropriate conditions. By the way, if you really were "NickOfCyprus", as I guess, you might want to suggest to the Arbcom guys that you give up your "GreekWarrior" username and switch to the other one, because "GreekWarrior" is itself rather inflammatory and Nick seems to have always been the better behaved account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Can do.


 * Irrelevant, but hope you didn't have in mind any familiar examples for 'Nick seems ... better behaved'... If you did, I'll take it as an insult! •N i k o S il v e r•  13:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

GreekWarrior is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. Following any ban GreekWarrior is placed on probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period should he engage in disruptive behavior. All blocks or bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/GreekWarrior.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Srik e it (Talk 08:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)