User talk:Sadbuttrue92

Welcome!

Hello, Sadbuttrue92! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Smashville^talk 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Assuming good faith

Wikipedia's basic policy is solve all with talk. Now, there was not enough talk in any talk page with you to judge this is vandalism or not and you did not clearly talk for any "vandalism" or so. Please discuss before ufairly demanding Admin intervention, discuss any changes you do not agree with in the talk page of the article and be clear enough if you think this is vandalism. There is also a policy called WP:Civility. Before talking about POV or so (without having checked the talk page) check this one too. I wish you a nice time in Wikipedia.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah right just carry on your propaganda mate--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, there is also reporting for civility purposes, and I wouldn't like to reach to that point. We are all trying to make Wikipedia better.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you aren't mate you are damaging the article the information you removed where important.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does the version you're supporting have consensus? Nice username, by the way. \m/ Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with MoP) I second Michael's sentiments about assuming good faith. Work it out on the talk pages; accusing him of "carrying on (his) propaganda" is unnecessary and rude. Looking over both your contribs, it seems apparent that you are the one with the civility problem here. Tan | 39 17:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no concensus because there was No Prior discussion for these changes on the talk page that's why I reported it for vandalism--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not vandalism; please stop using that term (and review WP:VANDAL while you're at it). Tan | 39 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic changes are: removing Kaloyannis' car incident (the source does not connect it to the riots/unrest), removing useless info (gun type, bullet size) to shorten the article a bit, and moving a part of one section to an "aftermath" section (a change that has been discussed a lot in the talk page, where it was also discussed whether the riots are ongoing or not). Why is this vandalism?--Michael X the White (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because you are removing vital information from the article from the Net broadcasting incident, the gun ,type , bullet from the shooting incident which shows that it was a serious crime, the info about kaloyannis which was a terrorist act and as you saw i had no problem with an aftermath section as long as it was in the right place--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is 2008 civil unrest in Greece. Details such as these (gun types, bullet sizes) are way to technical.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no they aren't too technical. after all a simple click can solve most questions of a user. And the basic problem is not the details of the shooting incident but of the terrorist attack against kalloyannis and the info on the NET broadcasting incident--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think you should jump down Michael's throat for having a different viewpoint; discuss it on the talk page and perhaps you'll reach a conclusion? It isn't, however, vandalism, but a content dispute. Just don't let it turn into an edit war (i.e. don't revert him until you've agreed on something or gained consensus). Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok no edit war but the different viewpoints are i am afraid based on POV which makes it difficult to communicate with him --Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you like some mediation? I could probably help out... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks but i'll hold you on that promise!--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks for the opportunity to recite some lyrics, haha. And if you need any help at all just yell. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Riots

Ok, then you should've just said so in the change message. Hard to differentiate random deletion vandalism from a proper delete with no given reason. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox Church

Flattered as I am for you asking for my help and assistance, I am afraid I cannot contribute much at the moment. I reviewed your changes and I approve them. You did a really good job! I think it would be best for me and for the article itself to stay away from it for now, since any involment on my behalf in any article related to the Greeks, drags a punch of historical revisionists (in the second meaning of the term) to it (I could mention a few examples). Thus, as long as mercenary motives and espionage tactics take place (involving, but not limited to administrators), I prefer to cease my editting. Yourself have a clean record, no apparent enemies and obviously good knowledge. Keep up the good work. Bye. Hectorian (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! but I'm sorry that you can't contribute anymore without dragging these stalkers with you perhaps it's time for a wikibreak or even a new account. I mean if they are in fact following your contributions history just to make counter edits. They are acting in bad faith and avoiding them shouldn't be considered a violation of WP:Policy.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how manty times?

Its the first time I move this article.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good for you...--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek communities in Albania

I have made a small addition in the lead, about the definition of the official recognized minority by Albania. Any ideas about which name to give to the article? According to international bibliography the most appropriate woulb 'northern epirotes', but the 'Greek communities in Albania' is also a good solution. I explained in the discussion that except from the 'official minority' of the 99 villages there are still the 'unrecognized' (in Himara etc), Helleno-Vlachs, and the exiled during the communist regime that live in central and northern Albania now (with revoked minority status).Alexikoua (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Epirotes with Greek minority in Albania and Greeks in Albania as redirects is fine for me. As far as the unrecognized by the Albanian government part of the minority. I think it definitely deserves mention in the article the problem I see is that the Albanian editors are completely disruptive in this article.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal

Nothing personal and no POVs, but what you are doing is just called a POV. Newspapers are not reliable about assumptions, they are reliable about facts.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No revert limitation?

So you're saying you are not this anon? I assumed you were. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not that anon... is the Dynamic IP system so hard for you to understand???--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sail frigate Psara

Sail frigate Psara 1830-1836 (broken up in 1846) had no engine. It was renamed Prince Maximilianos in 1933. There was a second ship named Prince Maximilianos, a small paddle steamed built in Greece in 1837. This is the one with engine problems in 1841 and the one in the web reference you state. Sv1xv (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for harassment, trolling and personal attacks. Since I'm myself the involved party here, I'll bring this for review at ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Fut. Perf. once more you remain true to Wikipedia Policies especially WP:Etiquette, WP:MASTODONS, WP:Bite, WP:AGF and WP:Civil by [1] Translating what you wrote in the Edit Summary: "Go Fuck yourself wanker". Thanks again--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I will not appeal this block despite the fact that it is in reallity unreasonable since I actually didn't make any personal attack to you but instead you did.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can well understand not appealing the block, because the discussion on ANI is definitely leaning toward keeping the block in place anyway. And, just for your information, your current "additions" to your talk page could qualify as a misuse of your talk page and make the block at least a little longer. A few apologies and, maybe, removal of insulting information from this page, couldn't hurt. Keeping them here, and maybe expanding to them, might. And, for what it's worth, this comment is coming from one of the admins who right now is least well inclined to the blocker. I imagine anyone else would say what I just said in much stronger terms. Just for your information. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the block was for 72 hours [2]. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the cookie! Always glad to help out. :) PS. IIRC there is also a beautiful three-masted sailing ship, named after Eugenidis, which was donated to the Navy. Any info on what's happened to it? Constantine ✍ 14:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

This doesn't really chronicle you making an attempt to 'discuss' anything, as your edit summary indicates. Rather, it's examples of you harassing another user. Keeping it on your user page creates the impression that you are proud of your bad behavior, and planning to repeat it. Creating that impression will make other editors think badly of you. And since Wikipedia works based on cooperation, you will be less successful at Wikipedia if other users thing badly of you. In my opinion, you should consider removing the evidence of your bad behavior from your user page, and stop trying to feature it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to say pretty much the same thing. Given the repeated issues with this, I have removed the information. Re-inserting it will be viewed as disruptive editing. Black Kite 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent trolling and harassment on userpage. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 11:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Thank you for choosing not to restore the links that were problematic. After discussion with the blocking admin, I'm undoing the block.

Request handled by: FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I've left a message on the blocking admin's talk page requesting clarification regarding this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Black Kite 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenidio

Hello. The passage is still not quite clear. Perhaps it would be better if you told me what you want to say in Greek, and I'll translate it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]