User talk:SentientContrarian

31 March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Takis Fotopoulos, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. User:Nikosgreencookie (User talk:Nikosgreencookie) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entire article about Takis Fotopoulos is based almost exclusively on primary sources and sources that belong to Mr. Fotopoulos. Wikipedia's policy mandates the use of secondary sources and reliable sources. SentientContrarian (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 April 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Takis Fotopoulos. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. You registered as wiki user @ 20-03-2012 and without any prior editing work you start attacking the Takis Fotopoulos article. I have serious reasons to suspect you as someone without good intentions and faith. I explained to you that the references are secondary sources and only 2 primary sources something that is in accordance with wikipedia's policy. User:Nikosgreencookie (User talk:Nikosgreencookie) 10:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained anything. Instead of acting like the members of the Church of Scientology did - and got duly banned from Wikipedia - , accusing people of vandalism, you could contribute positively by helping bring the article in question in line with Wikipedia's requirements. Mind you, what you do constitutes harrassment. SentientContrarian (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to address your false accusations, I actually to have some previous editing work, however minor. Could you please refrain from immediately surmising that someone who points out problems with the article on Mr. Fotopoulos is "attacking" him? The article needs improvement, plain and simple; the tag is merely a call for attention, so that you or others can improve it. Oh, and what happened to the assume good faith rule? SentientContrarian (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Takis Fotopoulos, you may be blocked from editing. You created a wiki user account only few days ago, you did 3-4 minors editing and then you came directly to Takis Fotopoulos article. You act in bad faith and i assume your only intention from the beginning was to attack the specific article. I don't know the reasons. And i don't care. Wikipedia is not the place for children come and play. There is a lot of work you can do if you have any intention to positively contribute to the wikipedia project. I regard the wikipedia project as very important and the only way to keep it running is to reject acts of vandalism. I explained to you that from the 15 references only 2 are primary sources something that is in accordance with wikipedia's policy. You come back giving no concrete reasons for your act just preaching generalizations. If you want to contribute positively why don't you do something about the "EMS Synthi A" article that provides no references at all or about the "Renault Clio" that lack sufficient references? I mention 2 articles where you corrected some minor grammatical errors. Probably because a positively contribution to the wikipedia project was never your real intention. User:Nikosgreencookie (User talk:Nikosgreencookie) 12:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is harassment. I pointed out weaknesses in the Takis Fotopoulos article and you immediately came to attack me and accuse me of vandalism. Is this the way all of you Inclusive Democracy supporters act? SentientContrarian (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Takis Fotopoulos, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. To summarise. You registered as wiki user @ 20 March 2012. After 3 minors editings to the pages "Rolleiflex", "Arkadi Monastery" "Renault Espace" finally you discovered that a thematically totally different article regarding a political philosopher relies on references to primary sources. I explained to you that when only 2 of the total 15 references are primary sources its ok and in accordance to the Wikipedia policy. In any case a beginner user as you with no prior editing work and/or experience with the Wikipedia project probably should start with less ambitious actions. Lets say why don't you try to improve an article adding citations etc? Why don't explain where do you see lack of references or primary sources? There are specific templates as "citation needed" etc and this way you could help the editors to improve the article. But NO. After only 3 minors editing and no experience you just added a template on the top of the page. According to these I strongly believe that you don't act in good faith and you don't really would like to help. Plus other actions of you like a) the message you left on the User talk:Nihilo 01 talk page saying "What's the deal with the Inclusive Democracy supporters? They're so aggressive and militant; please see my Talk page for some samples of their behaviour. What should be done about it?" constitute a) an indirect threat to the editors and b) affiliate ―without a single evindence or support― that people involved on the editing of Takis Fotopoulos page are Inclusive Democracy supporters and c) is offensive calling them "aggressive and militant". Other similar actions by you are the follow comments in your user page : "Instead of acting like the members of the Church of Scientology did" (offensive) "Is this the way all of you Inclusive Democracy supporters act?" (false). All the above are "personal attacks". User:Nikosgreencookie (User talk:Nikosgreencookie) 18:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Takis Fotopoulos. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Abhishek ^Talk 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - my point exactly is what you said "users are expected to collaborate with others". Regarding my reverts: as can be seen in the history of that article, I made two reverts as opposed to four by that other user. Also, he immediately accused me of vandalism. And repeatedly. His behaviour on my Talk page is something that I can easily perceive as harassment - he even claims I "indirectly threaten" him and others who follow the same ideology. SentientContrarian (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Nikosgreencookie reported by User:SentientContrarian (Result: Both 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 April 2012

SentientContrarian cannot unsubstantially make claims against a living person because he read something somewhere, etc. about him, nor that what he says about Fotopoulos' "rants", etc. have anything to do with his questionable activity against the biographical entry. John sargis (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

I've replied to your comment at User talk:EdJohnston#Regarding the Takis Fotopoulos entry. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

The post you made on User talk:Esparcadia contained suggestions regarding the real life identities of Wikipedia users. This is against our Harassment policy. I have blocked you according to WP:OUTING while we look into the matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

Checkuser shows convincing evidence of a link between the SentientContrarian account and User:Elp gr which combined with contributions and writing style show that the accounts are run by the same user. As Elp gr had been warned twice for edits to Takis Fotopoulos, and this account was then created to continue the same sort of edits, it is clear that this account had been created to avoid scrutiny. Both accounts have edit warred, and this SentientContrarian account has been blocked for edit warring. The SentientContrarian has also been blocked for WP:Outing. Given the circumstances of creating inappropriate accounts, edit warring and outing, your contributions and actions have been far more harmful than helpful to our aim of creating an encyclopaedia, so I am indefinitely blocking both accounts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Takis Fotopoulos. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the criticisms of the Takis Fotopoulos article been addressed? Articles in Wikipedia in English about matters Greek tend not to reflect well on Wikipedia, and I personally tend to like people who point out their flaws... Bougatsa42 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SentientContrarian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]