User talk:C. A. Lionis

This is C. A. Lionis's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: Draft:Constantine B. Scouteris has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Constantine B. Scouteris. Thanks! Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer, Thanks for your review and comment. Quick question: I've noticed that many 'bibliography' pages are indeed quite long, as are also quite a few 'external links' pages. Furthermore, the Greek page on this Article has been accepted in this length. Last but not least, what has been included is only a partial bibliography of Prof. Constantine Scouteris. Is your comment, thus, to be understood as a strict requirement (otherwise the Article will not be accepted) or more of a suggestion? On a separate note, please also note (to perhaps address a further point that you might have) that I also intend to also translate into English some of the references to this Article. Thanks again for all your efforts, looking forward to your feedback, C. A. LionisC. A. Lionis (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer, I have considerably shortened the 'bibliography' and 'external links' sections. Looking forward to the conclusion of your review! Thanks, C. A. LionisC. A. Lionis (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Constantine B. Scouteris has been accepted

Constantine B. Scouteris, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, C. A. Lionis. 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! —Paleo Neonate – 10:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and all the tips and suggestions, which are much appreciated! This is still a learning process for me! C. A. Lionis (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I noticed that you marked as minor edits which are not necessary minor ones: please see WP:MINOR for more information. Thank you and welcome again, —Paleo Neonate – 10:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seams to me that your only goal here is to promote work of Constantine B. Scouteris. That is incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia as neutral encyclopedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

C. A. Lionis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Vanjagenije, I'm very much surprised by your block. I'm a theologian and had the honor and privilege of being one of many students of Professor Scouteris. I have gathered publicly available material and have also obtained the consent of Professor Veniamin, who wrote Professor Scouteris' Obituary, for quoting him on the entry. More importantly, the work and academic accomplishments of Professor Scouteris (duly evidenced by all the relevant links) speak for themselves and he would certainly not need any promoting or advertising from my side. Last but not least, my few other contributions merely include references to Professor Scouteris' relevant work/published articles on entries such as "Theology", "Icon" and "Orthodox Church" (to cater for another editor's suggestion that this is an orphan article and that relevant links should be added in other entires). I would imagine that Wikipedia would welcome work/contributions by experts on the relevant fields, and not misinterpret their intentions. I've also been planning other contributions on other theological terms, but I'm now forced to reconsider. Kind regards, C.A. Lionis C. A. Lionis (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See comments below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vanjagenije, I've now also noticed that you have reverted my edits on other links. Did you actually review my edits? Are you a qualified expert in those fields? Can you provide objective reasons? Do you, for example, doubt that Professor is a world recognized expert on St. Gregory of Nyssa and that the specific reference is not warranted? Do you know that his article on icons, on which I merely included a short reference, has been translated and published in six languages and has been quoted more than 60 times in academic journals? Did you not see that my edit on Therapeutae was merely to include his full name as it appears in the wikipedia entry (i.e., a reference to his article was already included in the entry)? Was my reference on Eastern Orthodox Church not objectively justified? I would very much appreciate your feedback, if any. Kind regards, C. A. Lionis (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I don't see how the article Constantine B. Scouteris could be considered promotional. Other edits, linking to Scouteris's works, may or may not have been posted with the intention of promotion, but even if we assume they were, I think that to say "your only goal here is to promote work of Constantine B. Scouteris" to an editor whose main contribution has been to write a perfectly balanced and non-promotional article about him is an overstatement. It seems to me that at the most it might have been reasonable to have posted a friendly note to C. A. Lionis, explaining why you thought that the links he was posting were unsuitable, rather than to block him from editing without any warning or advice having been given beforehand. My experience over time has been that you are a reliable and reasonable administrator, but this time I have to disagree with you. I should like to unblock this editor, but I would welcome any comment from you before making a definite decision one way or the other. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I have no problem with unblocking. But, this user has a self-declared coflict of interes regarding Constantine B. Scouteris. On 10 July, user started adding references to Scouteris work to numerous articles (examples: [1][2][3]). None of those "citations" was used to verify any statement. They were used just to spam articles with Scouteris and hos work. That had to be stopped. I agree with unblocking if the user understands what was wrong and refrains from COI editing in the future. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JamesBWatson, Thank you for the sensible intervention. Please also have a look at all my edits on other entries which were reverted by Vanjagenije (seven in total) and you will be fully convinced that they were justified and nothing to do with an 'intention of promotion' (which, quite frankly, is both unfounded and insulting). As I have already stated, they were either footnotes/references in areas of undeniable expertise of Prof. Scouteris or just a link to the new Wikipedia entry in entries that previously just included his name. More importantly, the were only truly minor in-context interventions, which both added value to the information in the respective entries and followed the suggestion of another editor that links to the Scouteris new entry should be added in related/other entries. How this can possibly be misinterpreted the way it did, I honestly DO NOT KNOW! Thanks again and kind regards, C. A. Lionis (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my further thoughts on the matter, having read and considered the comment above from Vanjagenije. Most of your edits do seem to consist of adding mentions of Constantine Scouteris's works in places where they do not look like references to verify statements in the relevant articles, giving the impression that your purpose is more to do with publicising his work than to do with supporting content of articles. Such editing to publicise or promote a person's work is not the purpose of Wikipedia references, nor should that be the purpose of any other editing. I have no doubt whatever that you were acting in good faith, believing that Scouteris's work is valuable and that calling attention to them would be beneficial, but doing so falls outside Wikipedia's scope.

In view of what has been said above, by all parties, I am willing to unblock you if you indicate an understanding that you understand that the kind of mass posting of mentions of Scouteris's works is inappropriate, and that you have read Wikipedia's guideline on "conflict of interest" and will make sure that future editing complies with that guideline. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JamesBWatson, I understand that mass posting of mentions of Scouteris's works is inappropriate, and I have read Wikipedia's guideline on "conflict of interest" and will make sure that future editing complies with that guideline. In the same vein, however, I also repeat that my purpose here was indeed to 'support the content of the articles' edited and not to unduly promote someone's work. I also truly believe that any expert/theologian would confirm the value added by the references in question (in just a handful of entries/edits) and not misinterpret the interventions, which certainly do not qualify as 'mass postings'. In view of all the above, I will, from now on, only contribute with further edits, if need be, to "Constantine B. Scouteris" and will not intervene in any other entry, should you decide to unblock me. If, on the other hand, you decide to maintain the block, I thank you for your review of the matter and bid you farewell (very disappointed and disillusioned with the 'Wikipedia experience'). Kind regards, C. A. Lionis (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further, perhaps obvious, clarification: the "very disappointed and disillusioned with the 'Wikipedia experience'" comment applies in both scenarios (i.e. your decision to unblock me and your decision to maintain the block). Thanks again for your time, C. A. Lionis (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that. Many new editors, including myself when I started, come here thinking that Wikipedia will be good for doing something that they think is worth doing, only to find that Wikipedia sets itself more limited aims than we realised, and that what we thought was a good idea is not permitted. That is, of course, disappointing and disillusioning, and the restrictions on what one can do can seem arbitrary. Over the course of time I came to realise, however, that all the apparently arbitrary restrictions on what one is allowed to do have been developped for reasons, and in most cases for good reasons, although those reasons may not be obvious to newcomers. That is not to say that I personally agree with every aspect of every Wikipedia policy or guideline, I certainly don't, but even in cases where I disagree I can see that there are rational and arguable reasons for what those policies and guidelines say. I am genuinely sorry that your initial experience of editing Wikipedia has been so negative, and I hope that in the future things will go better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JamesBWatson, Thank you for the kind follow-up which is appreciated. Kind regards, C. A. Lionis (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]