User talk:SentientContrarian: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:09, 1 April 2012

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]

Revision as of 10:58, 1 April 2012 edit Nikosgreencookie (talk \| contribs) 5,173 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:09, 1 April 2012 edit undo SentientContrarian (talk \| contribs) 54 edits →1 April 2012 Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg\|25px\|alt=\|link=]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing\|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism\|vandalize]] Wikipedia, as you did at [[:Takis Fotopoulos]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|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.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning3 --> [[User:Nikosgreencookie]] ([[User talk:Nikosgreencookie]]) 12:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)		[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg\|25px\|alt=\|link=]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing\|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism\|vandalize]] Wikipedia, as you did at [[:Takis Fotopoulos]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|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.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning3 --> [[User:Nikosgreencookie]] ([[User talk:Nikosgreencookie]]) 12:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

			: 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? [[User:SentientContrarian\|SentientContrarian]] ([[User talk:SentientContrarian#top\|talk]]) 11:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)