Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Nichi Hodgson, 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. Philip Cross (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys,

I recently searched for a page of Brenton Harrison Tarrant and it seems that doesn't exist. This is a sensitive matter relating to a terrorist attack (which from my point of view is abhorrable but not everyone will agree with me). Also would like to add that I assume his page is none existent because of a political decision in New Zealand. So I open this talk to discuss if wikipedia should obey a political decisions or should be above that.

User:HelenHIL - I am not aware of any political decision in New Zealand that affects whether we have an article. It does not appear that anyone has attempted to write a detailed article. There is a draft at Draft:Brenton Tarrant that has not been submitted. If you want to discuss whether there should be a separate article, you should expand the draft, which in my opinion does not have enough information, and then submit the draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:nazi is not a policy, but wp:or is, as is wp:npov and wp:blp. So making accusations not in wp:rs about living people might well be lockable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report or warn on their talk page, but do not use an article talk page for it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. You seem to be more objective than the others. Don't you see an issue with not reporting about the Western propaganda in Ukraine? HelenHIL (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Khirurg (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have already violated 3RR at Ancient Macedonian language, but I noticed it only after I gave you the warning. Any further reverts are guranteed to result in a block. Not only that, but your edits are extremely POV and totally unacceptable. Khirurg (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will be blocked very very soon... Within 24 hours HelenHIL (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This won't age well. Khirurg (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you and Demetrios1993 will be blocked... xaxaxa καληνυχτα Πατακε... HelenHIL (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:HelenHIL reported by User:Khirurg (Result: ). Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I reverted you when it looks like there's been some Macedonian nationalism going on. I've restored your edit, but it'd be useful if you'd made a note in your original edit summary.Unbh (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Ancient Macedonian language. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits like how you did at Ancient Macedonians, which violated the WP:CONSENSUS and appear to be non-neutral. If you believe that changes have to be made, then use the talk page to seek consensus among editors. Considering that this is a very sensitive article and the current article version is the result of difficult compromises among editors, it is highly recommended that you exercise caution when removing or altering information in the article that may go against the consensus. Good day. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ancient Macedonians, you may be blocked from editing. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Ancient Macedonians.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I'm really perplexed for the reason of being blocked. I have done some changes in the article "Ancient Macedonians" and I was careful to make small changes justifying each time why the change was made. The reason for doing that was because I wanted if any editor had any objections to discuss it and to reach consensus. I changed among others things, things that are not controversial like double citation entries and some dates. As you understand it's not possible for every change to go to the talk page. SilentResident undid all my changes and I asked him if he had any objection to tell me what it is to discuss it. Instead of that he undid again all my changes collectively. I'm perplexed for blocking me as I didn't undo the changes more than 3 times and accusing me that I attacked SilentResident by telling him that he vandalizing the article after politely asking him to discuss where he objects is simply beyond my comprehension. My block is step to far and unnecessary. HelenHIL (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is entirely appropriate. First of all, content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM, and falsely accusing another user of vandalism is a personal attack. Secondly, you don't need to revert three times to be edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:09, 2 July 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't know exactly how Wikipedia works . I didn't know that what I did was against Wikipedia's policies. I would like to apologize for my behavior. Would not do again anything that is against Wikipedia's policies HelenHIL (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you admit you don't know how Wikipedia works, there's no reason to believe you understand how Wikipedia works and so can be trusted to abide by Wikipedia's policies. Yamla (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2022 (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.

•  Comment: firstly, I would like to be addressed with the pronouns "she/her" when referring to me specifically or more simply "they/theirs" (like every other editor). Secondly, if the editor HelenHIL is truly sincere in their apology and the unblock request is to be approved, it might be better if the editor is topic-banned from articles related to Ancient Macedonia. The bulk of the editor's disruptions and blocks, appear to have occured on articles from this sensitive topic area. Besides violating Wikipedia's rules, this editor appears to be incapable of understanding what WP:NEUTRAL is and their edits appear to have Macedonian nationalist characteristics. Wikipedia managed to keep Balkan politics away from this topic area and safeguard it either by blocking the POV warriors or by topic-banning any editors who might disrupt this area in more subtle ways. In my humble opinion, HelenHIL shouldn't be an exception to this: if they truly seek to remedy and contribute to Wikipedia, then, the Ancient Macedonia topic area doesn't have to be the place for that. I am sure the remaining 99.9% of the Wikipedia's articles is more than enough. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:30, 2 July 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry for the mistakes I made. They will not happen again. I will abide by Wikipedia's rules. Have taken the time to read and understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies HelenHIL (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I haven't read all of Wikipedia rules and I am an administrator; there are more rules than you probably think. You don't need to know every single rule, but you do need to know the ones relevant to your editing. If you now know them as you claim, you need to demonstrate that to be unblocked, by telling us what you did wrong and what you will do differently in the future. This request does not do that, so I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2022 (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.