User talk:Lmoench

• It's been a while, but I just noticed that some additions you made last month to the Tarpon Springs article that could be considered advertising and were not relevant to the town. Please be sure to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies on promotional editing to avoid future problems. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• These additions were placed on the Tarpon Springs article yet again, and I have removed them yet again. Additions were also made to the Symi article which most definitely were advertising and not relevant to the island. You also removed references in this article without replacing them with any other references of better provenance. Please can you abide by the Wikipedia policy on promotional aditing as Zeng8r mentions above. Thank you. --Symiakos (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that all information noted is relevant to Tarpon Springs and Symi. Importantly, over 2,000 Symians emigrated to Tarpon Springs and each year several annual celebrations bring together the Symi community. Symians in Tarpon Springs have relatives in Symi and vice versa. This Symiot population represents 67% of Symi's existing population today. Furthermore, many Tarpon Springs Symians are home/land owners in Symi!

Let's review what is advertising and what is not: Cobi sanders who sells paintings online? SymiGreece website that lists the Symi Festival? Is the Festival deemed more important by you than the Sister City Link? If there is a link to the Festival should there not be a link to published information about the Sister City?

An article from the Daily Telegraph and a published newspaper describing the sister city link are construed as advertising by you?? Please take another look at the mixed messages here! Thank you.--Lmoench (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC) [(User:lmoench|talk]])

I dont have any problem with you mentioning any Sister City link if you think it important. What I do have a problem with is your constant references on the Symi and Tarpon Springs articles to a particular business and it's owner in your edits. This is very much advertising, is completely irrelevant, and is very much contrary to the wikipedia's policies on promotional editing. If you wish to mention the Sister City link please limit it to relevant facts without slipping in adverts.

Cobi Sanders is an internationally renowned artist and many would consider it VERY relevant to mention that she lives on Symi. In any case, the link given is to her wikipeida site, not to a business website. The fact that she may well sell paintings online on a different site is irrelevant to her mention on this page where any business site she may own is not mentioned, let alone linked to. The SymiGreece Symi Festival link is useful because it is the only website in the world that carries any reviews of the Symi Festival; this website was asked directly by the Organising Committee of the Symi Festival to cover the Festival in 2009.--Symiakos (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition of internationally renowned is a highly subjective one. What defines someone as being “internationally renowned”? Having a Wikipedia description of oneself does not make a person internationally renowned! Several examples of Symi architects who have been awarded international awards for their work on Symi and Greece have been included. As recipients of these international awards for achitecture, and noted authors they are confirmed as "internationally renowned".

In reviewing the SymiGreece website, it appears to be a business site. It has links to commercial ventures, and a far from transparent chat page. Furthermore, it includes innapropriate negative and personal captions and comments that demonstrates a lack of unbiased objectivtity. Objectivity is necessary if the information source is to be accepted by Wikipedia. Personal likes and dislikes should not be a factor in any Wikipedia based information. Information describing Symi should present true rather than skewed facts. By upholding the same standards you describe for the Festival, a link to the newspaper that featured the sister city celebration and the historic signing event is also appropriate. Please explain why there are 2 "Festival links" to the same website. Isn't this redundant and overly excessive marketing? With respect to other information sources about Symi, other websites exist and these should be objectively noted. --Lmoench (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Many directories contain links to commercial ventures, but this does not mean that they are commercial; SymiGreece charges no money and earns no money, so cannot be called commercial. I fail to see how your personal opinion of a chat forum that is not linked to or mentioned on the Wikipedia site for Symi is at all relevant to the Wikipedia article we are discussing. You have persistently and consistently carried on putting up text and links which are mostly advertisements for the Symi Visitor. The Symi Festival is not being "marketed" by references; Wikipedia is not a marketing site. Given the Festival is by far the single most important cultural output of Symi, and given that the council's site carries no descriptions or reviews, then both sites are indeed relevant. With regard to information sources for Symi, I suggest you look at the history list of the Symi page where you will see numerous attempts to put up links to Symi Visitor and SymiGreece in the "Links" section have been removed by admisitrators in favour of the island's official site. Wikipedia is not a site to provide links to all Symi-related sites, especially the commercial ones. I said previously that I had no objection to you mentioning the Sister City status, but it should be done without including adverts for Symi Visitor. I have amended this and moved it to a more appropriate place.--Symiakos (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The front page of the SymiGreece website boasts:

Symi Accommodation Book Online Book your Symi holiday: 123 properties online.

This could not be a more blatant example of commercialism. Symicat (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All that this is saying, SymiCat, is that if people wish to come to Symi on holiday, they can look at SymiGreece's directory of accomodation, contact the relevant place and book. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a service to the island and its tourist economy. SymiGreece is nothing more than the diretory and receives no payment for what it does. This couldn't be a more blatant example of NON-commercialism.--Symiakos (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that we are moving slowly yet methodically to a consensus. This is important. Consistent adherence to applying the same standards of information and sources is also highly important; therefore all websites should be equally used as reference sources when such references provide valid news and information. It appears that the website of SymiGreece and that of SymiVisitor are equal in the service they provide. Furthermore, neither one makes money, and both serve as portals to direct tourists to services on Symi. Therefore each site should be linked where appropriate. It is a fallacy to describe one as NON-commercial and the other as commerical! This is merely playing with semantics. References #10 and 11 are redundant, and one of these should be removed. In the inital description of the Symi Festival there was originally no mention of its founder or the artist who has donated her time all these years to the theme and the design of the cover. Its intent was clearly the commerical promotion of a commercial website. Thank you for agreeing to accepting the additional factual information.

With respect to the Sister City link, its commercial value is important, and so is its heritage link. This needs to be respected. The Festival is important to Symi, and so is the Sister City relationship with Tarpon Springs.

The link to the UK newspaper of The Daily Telegraph has been reinserted. This international newspaper is a credible source without political bias or alliances. --Lmoench (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The equality or not, and the commercial status or not of Symi-related websites is not relevant to the Wikipedia article. As Wikipedia is not a place to "plug" ANY website or business, what is important is to keep blatant ads and de-faco ads out. You keep deleting a reference to the number of non-Greek residants of Symi. Please leave this alone unless you can provide a reference of better provenance. Please also do not expand certain sections with information that is too much for an article this size on Symi; in particular, the article is NOT about Tarpon Springs. Reference 10 is to the Symi Council site that for the festival that is only update annually, while reference 11 is to the site that the Organising Committee for the Symi Festival has asked to cover the events. I consider both are relevant and supportive of each other. The Telegraph (a UK newspaper, not an international one) is very well known for its political leanings In any case, that is not relevant to this article. The link is unnecessary and it appears that you only include it because it is packed full of advertisment for the Symi Visitor, and does not provide useful information about Symi to warrant its inclusion.--Symiakos (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked an independent and fair-minded admin from Wiki to give an opinion on these differences of opinion.--Symiakos (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi. This is a content dispute, and content disputes are best handled by seeking further opinions. However, as I have been previously involved with this article in my administrator capacity, I am not in a position to choose a side in this discussion. There are a number of places on Wikipedia where the two of you can go to find neutral input on these questions. Many of them are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Given that there are multiple concerns here - including whether certain details should be included and the appropriateness of some links - it may be best to neutrally request an opinion at a general forum such as Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Since the questions are related to neutrality, though, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard may also be appropriate. I will watch this talk page in case there are questions about the dispute resolution process or about how to request feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You have removed important facts about Michael Cantonis including a credible link (one of many that could be used) that provides readers with more information. Cantonis, a Symian built the nursing home at Panormitis, and has donated significantly to Symi and to Panormitis Monastery in general, a Sister City supported, and yet you keep information about Cobi Sanders? This is inequity and selective judgement on your part.

You cite a commercial website to provide census data. Yet this data is not validated and not accurate. The count of 120 non-Greek residents is erroneous. First this data is 3 years old, and does not account for the influx of Albanians, Afghans, Romanians, Russians and others living on the island. There are other sources including the Symi police that can provide more accurate numbers. You mention that these non Greeks are permanent residents, but you fail to mention that there is a large international community of part-time residents. This should also be included. Importantly, they pay taxes and have contributed economically to the island.

Your bias towards Tarpon Springs Sister City relationship has perpetually come through all your edits and comments. You have deemed the Symi Festival to be more important, and yet the economic side of the Sister City relationship (while less visible and flamboyant) as the Festival is critical to education, historical preservation and more. Already exchange programs are being planned and a major financial donation to the restoration of Panormitis’ tower. In fact, this building draws more people throughout the year than the Festival! There is still no need to have two links to Festival information when it is contained on one. This is redundant.

To reach consensus, the reference to the Greek and English language newspapers, and the name of the website that also provides information in the SAME way to the one you support and have a connection to. Now it is time to leave the factual information on the Sister City, include accurate information about the residents and leave supporting articles from credible international sources so that Wikipedia can assess the information provided. Thank you.--Lmoench (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything from this article. I've never edited it. I am an uninvolved administrator on the Wikipedia project, and I have to warn you that edit warring in an article may result in your account being blocked from contributing further or in the article being locked so that no one can edit it. Please pursue dispute resolution as I recommended above if you wish to contribute to the development of this article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The facts about Michael Cantonis may well be important, but they are not so important as to warrant three lines in this small article. I can accept that there is a case to mention the sister city and provide a link (the link to Mayor Biliris is unnecessary, and again appears just to be a way to promote the Symi Visitor) but it is not necessary to pad this out in the way you keep doing. If you wish to mention Mr Cantonis, I suggest it is more relevant to do so on the Tarpon Springs page. If you are so keen on including a link to the Symi Visitor, then why not replace the link to the Spring 2009 edition in the Sister City section to the relevant page where an electronic version of this paper can be downloaded from the Symi Visitor website? I also do not agree with your removal of the number "120" in the article; it did at least give a ballpark figure for people to judge the size of the population of non-Greek permanent residents and you would deny the reader this. I cannot understand why, especially as the quoted total population of Symi given in the article based on the 2001 census is far more out of date and you do not dispute that.--Symiakos (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Telegraph article that you have linked to is little more than a sales site for Symi Visitor's real estate business. It even includes a list of properties for sale! You have stated that Symi Visitor is not commercial yet it has a real estate business, and this is very commercial.--Symiakos (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any dispute resolution is going to be difficult unless Symiakos' obsession with the Symi Visitor site can be dealt with. In virtually every one of the many revisions he/she has made, Symi Visitor is mentioned in extremely negative terms, particulaly when it is pointed out the this site bares a close resemblance to the SymiGreece site - which Symiakos seems just as obsessively determined to be linked as often as possible. This would seem to be the nub of this on-going and petty dispute. If Symiakos can explain just what his/her problem is with the Symi Visitor site, we may be able to see some mutually acceptable compromise. As I have said before, none of this helps the image of Symi.Symicat (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an "obsession" with Symi Visitor. This is insulting. I have an "obsession" in preventing Wikipedia being used by LMoench and yourself to keep on putting up advertisements for Symi Visitor and its real estate business. I would do this for ANY Symi-related business because this is what Wikipedia's rules demand. If Symi Visitor carried articles and news items that could be deemed useful references then I have no problem with them being used, but neither of you have provided any. I have also never said anything negative at all about the Symi Visitor in any of my edits or comments here, that again is just not true. Where have I said these things that you accuse me of? Give me even a single example. I have also not put up even a single link to SymiGreece. Why do you say these things when they are demonstrably untrue? Anyone looking at my contributions to Wikipedia can see that what you have said is untrue. You and LMoench seem to want to fill the Wikipedia page with references and advertisements for a particular business and then complain when anyone objects to it. I urge you both to treat Wikipedia with the respect it deserves.--Symiakos (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution does not necessarily require that the parties to the conversation come to agreement. Wider community input, particularly from those who have no personal involvement with the subject, can create a larger group to evaluate the issue, who will determine if the material should be included in the article. Once the larger group reaches consensus, it is enacted in the article. The editor whose opinion is not embraced by the larger group at that point is not free to continue imposing his or her wishes on the article, but will need to accept the consensus that develops. If only two people are involved, WP:3O can provide a third to break a stalemate. With more than two in a conversation, another forum can bring in more. Although of course it's great when dispute resolution leads to all parties being satisfied, that isn't always possible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A completely independent 3rd party resolution would certainly have my vote. As the two sites -Symi Visitor and Symi Greece - seem to be at the heart of this, either both or neither should be mentioned or linked. Would any resolution be able to prevent future attempts to add mentions/links if they should be removed by the evaluators? Symicat (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a tricky question. The point here, made at Wikipedia:Consensus, is that consensus can change. The Wikipedia project is constantly evolving, with policies and guidelines that grow and flex to accommodate the needs and experiences of the community. If consensus emerges to do things one way and a contributor continues to edit in a certain way contrary to that, he or she is liable to sanction for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. "Continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors" can lead to an account being blocked. But if a matter that reaches consensus is later revisited (say if policy or guidelines change or new details emerge about the websites in question), the situation may change. Do, please, be careful if you post the question to an impartial forum, to do so neutrally so that you do not seem to be unfairly influencing the outcome. And please be patient with the process, as it can take a while for consensus to emerge. Arguments based on policy and guideline are most likely to be persuasive; the ones I would recommend that contributors to this matter review are WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the process put in motion. I would further like to see:

1/ Agreement from the interested parties, who seem to be Symiakos, LMoench and myself, that the process be allowed to progress without lobbying.

2/ That the evaluators study the site and use their judgement as to what it shall display.

3/ That Symiakos, LMoench, myself agree that the changes shall be binding and that any further editing will be referred to an agreeable independent third party for opinion before any changes are enacted. (Clearly the possiblility of others wishing to add edits would have to be looked at - is there precident for this sort of situation?)

If Symiakos and LMoench agree, let's move on this as soon as possible. I will be working in Italy for a week commencing 13th September. It would be nice if we can at least start the process before I leave.

I don't know if this fits with Wikipedia policy or guidlines, but I think that this would form an equitable basis for settlement of this unfortunate dispute. Symicat (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, your first point is not only reasonable, but mandated by Wikipedia:Canvassing. Wikipedians are forbidden to try to sway to consensus. Point 2 is standard and doesn't require any agreement among yourself. The third choice is one that you could agree upon, but isn't likely to be enforced. While ignoring any developed consensus to continue pursuing a certain view would be regarded as disruption, you would all be welcome to contribute to the article appropriately and within the consensus. Moving on this process requires that one of you take action, by looking at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and choosing a forum to which you should appeal. As there are three of you, 3O is not proper. Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard may be your best choice to start. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

SymiCat, I have no problem with links to the Symi Visitor if they are pertinent and useful and are not just there to be an ad for Symi Visitor. I have said this repeatedly. Many of LMoench's edits have been, in effect, using Wikipedia to promote the Symi Visitor's business. You saying that SymiGreece is at the heart of this is just plain wrong; no links have been added there by anyone to promote any business. I have already said, three times now, that if a link of better provenance for the size of the non-Greek population on Symi can be found, then I would be happy for it to replace the link that is already there, but I am not happy in the deletion of references by LMoench or yourself just because you dislike the website they are on. Please treat Wikipedia as it is meant to be, a site for the furtherance of knowledge, not as a way to promote businesses.--Symiakos (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - moderation request

I have placed a request for neutral moderation on this unedifying and purile spat here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Symi.2C_the_Greek_Island_of Symicat (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unedifying? Peurile? Spat? What silly words you use in yet another of your myriad attempts to make things appear differently from how they are. Any reasonable and honest person would read what has been written above and see two people engaged in an honest debate which doesn't resort to name calling. You always have to do this with every discussion you disagree with. You can't even place an honest description of what has been discussed here on your dispute resolution post. How you behave (including your filthy libels that were deleted on other pages here) makes a total mockery of your professed love of Symi.--Symiakos (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)