Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Konstantinos Karamanlis did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a friendly notice as described in the relevant instruction
You removed cited content, manipulated some sources, and reverted to a version of the page with numerous grammatical errors. Please refrain from doing this again, as it is considered vandalism.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Afroditi Latinopoulou, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think others talk page comments are inappropriate, you can request them to edit and strike them (either in reply or on their talk page). In the case you think that another user has violated policies/guidelines with their talk page comments, you should involve administrators rather than editing their comments. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure you don't think I'm being one sided on this, I also did advise the other user that they should consider striking their comments - and regardless if they do that or not, you should still feel free to bring that up to administrators. That said, keep in mind that if their assertion that you are engaging in behavior here that you've been blocked for on another project prior, then that too may be examined if you try to bring them to administrator attention for their comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
Δεν είναι εύκολο με αυτό το χρήστη να έρθεις σε συνεννόηση. Η αλήθεια όμως όμως είναι, ότι το κόμμα χαρακτηρίζεται ακροδεξιό από τη συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των πηγών, οπότε αν μια πηγή το χαρακτηρίζει δεξιό, δεν έχει καμμιά σημασία και σωστά την αφαίρεσε. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ναι από ότι κατάλαβα υποστηρίζει ένα συγκεκριμένο κόμμα..
Σχετικα με τη πηγή τωρα, εφόσον υπάρχει δεν θα έπρεπε να συμπεριληφθεί ;
Ποσο μάλλον όταν στο Βελόπουλο έχουν βάλει δεξιά , + ότι δεν ταυτιζεται Νίκη με Σπαρτιάτες και ΧΑ για να έχει αποκλειστικά Ακροδεξια.(προφανώς δεν λέω να αφαιρεθεί η Ακροδεξιά, λεω να γίνει αναφορά στη Δεξιά ) 79.107.42.248 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Καλημέρα. I have seen a specific user called Michalis revert any major or minor edits that have been attempted on the Voice of Reason article for the past weeks. While I am no fan of that party, I do believe the sources used to characterize it are biased at best, malicious at worst. Since I am not a registered user, could you please do a check on the sources used on the Voice of Reason article and verify their quality? Alot of them seem really unfit to be source material. Thank you and have a nice day. 2A02:587:546A:B500:D548:55A1:154E:9A4F (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Καταθέστε την άποψή σας στη σελίδα συζήτησης του λήμματος - προκειμένου να δημοσιοποιηθεί η διαφωνία σας, που δεν είναι μόνο δική σας αλλά και πολλών άλλων. Δεν μπορώ να εμπλέκομαι μόνο εγώ σε διορθοπόλεμο με το χρήστη. D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Your last two links are to the entire history of M1994's talk page and an SPI in which the responding admin has said you haven't provided enough evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the first link is about the habit of Michalis1994 to blank his talk page. If you pay attention you will see a lot of tags about behavioral problems not only by me.
Regarding the second link I gave all the information requested. just wait for the results to come out . not for any other reason but because you think his a new user. D.S. Lioness (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Users are allowed to blank warnings on their talk pages; the assumption is that they are aware of them. I'll keep an eye on the SPI. You'll really be helping the responding admin if you change those revision links to diffs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers No one can get away with user Michalis1994. It will constantly undo any edits to keep its own. In case you call him on the Talk page, you will only get irony.
In English, referring to other people as "it" is considered offensive. I see plenty of non-ironic talk page comments from them. I am surprised to see they called your edits "vandalism", so I asked at their user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments at Talk:Niki (Greek political party)#RFC have included too much personal commentary. If you have a conduct accusation to make about another editor—e.g. that they "deliberately and constantly slander" others—follow the steps of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which involve discussion somewhere other than the article talk page. I don't want to imply that you're the only one making this mistake, but addressing it now would be very helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just answer to personal attacks of Michalis who keep accusing for being a sockpuppet. I dont want to continue this battle. So i will remove my comments. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
The above message is meant to be neutral, and it says "does not imply that there are any issues with your editing". To be clear, there have been issues with your edits in this topic area. You reported an editor for edit warring who had not breached 3RR, while you yourself had violated the rule, having previously been warned about edit warring. This may have been an error (a serious one), or it may have been battleground conduct. I hope it was the former, and I urge you to use reverts less and discussion more. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a daily constant edit warring in all the extreme right-wing Greek political parties. It is better to add this template to the discussion pages rather than mine, let alone that you cannot understand the quality of my contribution, and my daily "struggle" for reliable sources and npov content. D.S. Lioness (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it might help to add notices to affected talk pages. We usually use Template:Contentious topics/talk notice, which any user (not just admins) can add to pages that are obviously covered by the contentious topic. I'll add it to Talk:Niki (Greek political party) now. I want you to know that I am not judging the quality of your contributions or the legitimacy of your struggle. I assume you're doing good work. I hope you'll continue to do so while being more careful about edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last question. when I invite someone to a discussion on the article's talk page and they don't participate, what should I do? D.S. Lioness (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to give an answer that will work in all such cases, but generally I'd suggest waiting some time (maybe 2 days or so) and then repeating the edit if they don't respond. I'd wait less time if it's an important issue and more time (like a week) if it's not a big deal. This doesn't need to be your last question, but I will be stepping away from my computer soonish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 5 July 2024 (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).
As specifically stated in the edit warring policy, while 3RR is a bright line to cross, you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts- so quibbling over the number isn't productive. You aren't blocked specifically for violating 3RR. We want to know what you will do instead of edit warring to resolve disputes. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2024 (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.
The text added in that fourth diff was content being disputed in an ongoing RfC, and your edit summary shows you were aware of the RfC (and you've commented in it). It partially reverted many edits, including this one, by (for example) changing the first sentence to say "far right" instead of "in the conservative space". Use of "far right" in the lead is one of the questions being considered in the RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DSL, instead of asking this sort of question, I encourage you to take some time as a break and then re-read the ANI discussion, which includes quite a bit of specific critical feedback. You obviously disagreed with much of it, but you're only avenue to getting unblocked/unbanned is appealing to the community. You'll want to be able to say that you heard the community's feedback and have changed accordingly. Comments you make now might make that future appeal harder. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally unfamiliar how English wp works. the Greek Wikipedia works in a completely different way so I am constantly surprised. I take the Greek Wikipedia for granted and react according to those policies. I have no bad intentions, I just have to adapt to a completely different way of operating, D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This community is unlike any other. A lot of the rules and norms are common sense, and some are bizarre and surprising. I think most people are able to mold themselves to roughly fit in here. I hope you are too. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you haven't started to edit the entry of V. Marinakis. I'm not going to stand in your way. The other was a known puppet with a bottomless hatred against him. I don't care what you write, as long as it's decent. Rich people are all the same, but we must be dignified and serious. Montigliani (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't plan to edit the article further, at least not right now. I just wanted to say that I also found this sentence at the beginning of the article problematic. Anyway, we're not out of the woods yet. It's currently in a block, which will end in two or three days, and it will come back. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it seems to me that you are a bit over the top in the Super League article. there is no need for so much over-categorization. :) D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He will do his own thing and he doesn't change his mind. I watched him while I was locked up. It will persist until I block again and permanently. I'm a bit nervous myself and I can't talk much. You're not bored... Montigliani (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. My pov is that there 3 main subcategories of the Greek Championship: i) Panhellenic (1927-59) ii) National League (1959-79) iii) Professional League (1979-present). The formation of Super League in 2006 is part of the Professional League section. SL is a collaboration of all teams that simply succeeded the previous one (EPAE). Both EPAE and SL responsible for the organisation of the Championship always under the supervision of the Hellenic Football Federation. The league is still contested with professional players, teams are still Football Incorporated Companies. It's all the same since 1979. In 2006 we had a rebranding. A successor of EPAE as organising body and the league renamed. SL is the highest professional association football league in Greece (as written in the website of the major sponsor). Abudabanas (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Montigliani Do you want to take this to Wiki Project Football? It's not so important after all. I believe that SL is part of the Professional League subcategory, you say it's a separate one. Let's see what other users have to say. Cause this way it's endless and has no meaning to edit war or to post the source from gazzetta.gr and you mentioning from another website etc. We will post a discussion, write down our povs, call other users and anyone who wants share his thoughts and we 'll see. Abudabanas (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence on constantly asking someone else's opinion irritates me. We don't have ours? And in the end, do opinions or referrals count? It is a pity for me that I am forced not to put the period 2019-present separately. It is special for many reasons. If you don't understand it, you are doing the encyclopedia a disservice. Montigliani (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Montigliani My friend, I have my pov, you have yours. I respect that, ok, it's something very common in Wikipedia. There are lot of users who are interested in football articles (Greek and abroad). Why not asked them? They are neutral, they will share their thoughts. If we don't do this, we will keep reverting eachother endlessly. As I told you, it's not so important after all. The same goes for the Greek Cup article. Not so important. However, was it presented in a proper, fair and accurate way? I thought not. There can't be two 2nd place awards for one competition that was not fulfilled. I understand you might think 'who cares?'. I thought it was wrong, other users came in, they agreed with me and they made the present edit adding the note. Maybe I am the one who is mistaken here for the SL article, who knows. I strongly believe that I am not. Even if it is for a minor issue like this, it must be presented properly. And when 2 users disagree, others can come in and give a solution. With respect Abudabanas (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2019, the establishment of playoffs for the champion and the use of VAR, made the league more competitive and fairer and allowed teams with infrastructure and stable foundations, such as Olympiacos and PAOK to become giants in Europe. The changes of 2019 are decisive. Montigliani (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some messages from the RfC at Talk:Evangelos Marinakis ([2][3]) because they focused on user conduct rather than content. Please focus on content instead. Looking [4], [5] and [6], the situation has become an unproductive battleground and the persistent attempts to silence the other side of the conflict by getting them blocked needs to stop. If the persistent bickering discourages uninvolved others from finding a consensus, it may become necessary to place long-duration blocks to prevent your private conflict from influencing Wikipedia's processes too much. There are 6,862,502 articles in this encyclopedia and there is no need to get so intensely involved in a small subset of them. The Task Center is full of productive ideas; please consider disengaging from the conflict voluntarily.
Re [7], please carefully read WP:ASPERSIONS and give consideration to staying off of that user's talk page, especially with "bystander" type comments like that in conversations that do not concern you. VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Just for the record, most of this advice remains valid and the checkuser block is not an endorsement of making sockpuppetry accusations on article talk pages or following perceived sockpuppets around instead of filing a sockpuppetry investigation, or following a declined investigation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be honest
So I will tell you that I don't like your treatment of the article by V. Marinakis. You put both "oligarch" and the "Noor 1" case in the introduction of the article. It's like playing Michalis1994's game, in a mild way. I'm not at all satisfied man, but I can't edit there anyway. Montigliani (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't play Mihalis1994's game and you know it very well. Both the Noor1 case - he is currently an accused - and the Oligarch allegations are important aspects of Marinakis' biography. I tried to be as neutral as possible, but we cannot hide important facts. D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I saw your draft and the hymns for P. Polakis and I understood a lot. And who says he is still accused? Makis Triantafyllopoulos; Good. The field is all yours, since I can't write there. But you should know, because I don't like to be made fun of, that I think that Michalis 1994 played the "hare" in the case, so that you can run the race yourself. Montigliani (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not hymns for Polakis. I want to make his article and I'm collecting everything the websites say. That's what they say, that's what I copy. Marinakis is an accused and it's not Triantafylopoulos saying it.
Now why are you doing the exact opposite? Also, the reference you give is from the site of Makis Triantafyllopoulos. Are you kidding us? Who is Marina the ugly one? What exactly does this mean? Montigliani (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Michalis I disagreed with the way he had put the charge of Oligarch. In a non-existent introduction he had only put that accusation in a way that was not neutral. Now, it is neutral. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new citation you posted says: the case file, which referred to the investigation into the involvement of the shipowner Vangelis Marinakis and his associates in the financing of the heroin cargo, was closed with formal calls from the investigator, as no evidence against the defendants emerged. Do you understand what this means? Probably not that's why you keep making mistakes and not being honest. You are suspicious and I don't like you at all. Montigliani (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm blocked. Tomorrow it ends and I will write there. I won't bother you on your page again. Only when I need to say goodbye to you... Montigliani (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say not to write to me again - I have nothing against you. But more people will be able to participate on the discussion page. D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pavlos Polakis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinet of Alexis Tsipras. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's readily apparent from your many comments, disruptive and battleground actions, sheer childish pettiness, and your actions on the ANI thread, that you are not compatible with this project for so many reasons. As a result you have been blocked from editing indefinitely. Canterbury Tailtalk13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
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).
I realized that I should not have made this thread on ANI as everyone should be judged by their edits and not by possible suspicions or preconceived notions, as I did. Since the articles about Greek topics are not very well attended, I felt I was at a dead end. After being informed by User:EducatedRedneck I realized that I had more ways to seek consent than I thought I had. I should also add that I have done 2,261 edits and of those, I think about 100 maximums are related to disruptive editing. That's why I'm applying to have my total and permanent ban lifted. Thank you. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
It's much, much too soon to consider overturning the result of a community discussion. Frankly, even if it wasn't, there's no chance the community would consent to lifting this block with a request like this. At a minimum, you'll need a WP:TOPICBAN on Greece, broadly construed. I suggest contesting the block no sooner than six months from now and you'll have a much higher chance if you wait a year. Yamla (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2024 (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.
