User talk:Teo628957

Hello, Teo628957, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

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 Sakis Rouvas, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Please stop taking out sourced sales information from Sakis Rouvas related article. The figures and certifications are sourced. Greekboy (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sales of Sakis Rouvas which you put in the articles are unsource and I change them with others sales which are official from IFPI. You don't use any source in this article.

--Teo628957 (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the discography talk page, the two million sales are sourced by two reliable sources. Regarding the certifications on his albums page, they are all from his personal website, MAD TV, and other various sources. And as it was explained to you on the Anna Vissi talk too, the chart show is NOT endorsed by IFPI. They are NOT considered a reliable source. So please stop changing things. If you disagree, please discuss it on the talk page first. Greekboy (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the charts of IFPI which I put as references on Sakis Rouvas article are very reliable you can't use the sources of Mad and not use the sources of IFPI.

--Teo628957 (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not sourcing IFPI. You are sourcing the chart show. Those are two separate things. And the personal website and MAD refs are in fact reliable. They even highlight certification parties with IFPI reps. Greekboy (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from IFPI and you can see that the album of Rouvas S' exo erwteuthei is only platinum. The album in this chart placed at number 46: http://web.archive.org/web/20060126205912/www.ifpi.gr/chart05.htm

--Teo628957 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ι could like, also, to see your "sources".

--Teo628957 (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at a specific week that is not representative of the whole picture. Most of the certifications are sourced from his site and/or other reliable sources. Some may have been added by IP's. If you have other numbers, then please use a source to back them up. The burden of evidence lies with the editor that wishes to add material. The chart show is NOT a reliable source. The two million record sales claim is sourced properly though.Greekboy (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ι accept that a specific week is not representative of the whole picture. But even now I can't see a official source. I Would like to see an official article which prouf that the album S' exw erwteuthei is 3 times platinum and I would like also to see an official article which prouf these two million sales.

--Teo628957 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, an IP might have added false information. If you have other certification information, add it but with a source. Regarding the two million sales, it is sourced if you look at the article..... Here are the two websites [1] [2], both of which are considered reliable sources by wikipedia. Greekboy (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no prouf to say that an IP added false information. If you haven't proufs about what you say you better not to tell anything. As a say I want to see official sources. Also, in these articles maybe an IP have added false information. And I haven't seen an official source about the album S exw erwteuthei. As I see all of the "sources" are fake or are things that you take from your mind.

--Teo628957 (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my job to prove to you if an IP added false information or not. I do not work for you or for wikipedia. Both of the sites that cite the two million record sales have both been cleared by wikipedia as reliable sources. An IP can not edit those article. Like it or not, they are not "fake". Greekboy (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Untitled Album (Despina Vandi)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Untitled Album (Despina Vandi). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Album (Despina Vandi). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the deletion debate header from the article again. The process in the works is official and can only be closed by an admin who has reviewed the "evidence" and points of view of those who commented. With respect to the other changes to the article, you may have had some good edits, but your blanked revert created tons of grammar and wiki formatting issues so I had to revert you completely. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You appear to be repeatedly mass reverting editors across multiple articles related to Anna Vissi. This constitutes edit warring and is not an acceptable editing technique for various reasons including that it is counter-productive, wastes Wikipedia's resources, and clogs up watchlists. Editors which persistently engage in edit wars may be blocked from editing if they continue after warnings have been given, even if they have not technically violated the three revert rule. The reverting taking place appears to be related to one area and in some cases you are in disagreement with multiple editors - a good indication that you should stop and discuss this before making further edits to the articles related to this dispute. Please choose a suitable talk page and try to reach an agreement. If this fails, dispute resolution is available. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I'm a little confused here. You go around saying we cannot have any "false indication" for Vissi, but then change the Vandi article to be overly sensational like she is the best singer ever. Wikipedia must be neutral. Just because someone says something, doesn't mean it is a appropriate for Wikipedia. Though I appreciate the fact that you decided to source your additions, you did so in an incorrect manner and a few of them (ie blogs, forums) are not considered reliable and cannot be included. Additionally, please do not revert the Despina Vandi article back to your poorly written version. Since this is the English Wikipedia, articles should be written using proper English spelling and grammar. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is by far reliable as it is taken from the biggest newspaper of Turkey. Also, I apologize for my english as I live in Greece and I can't speak perfect Einglish.--Teo628957 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment as well. You seem to be cherry picking information out of sources to form a conclusion. Something that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Let's stick with reliable sources please. Also some of the information is very open to interpretation, especially considering the wording. For example (just an example) if you want to get technical, saying "biggest Greek singer" opens the door to a lot of different interpretations of that meaning. Just the phrase "Greek singer" throws Nana Mouskouri into that equation, who has sold well over 300 million records worldwide. Phrases like those can be considered Weasel word, and should be used with caution.Greekboy (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about sales only in Greece not worldwide. Nana Mousxouri is the best all over the world but not in Greece. Also, the phrase says "biggest Greek star in Greek music". Nana Mousxouri represents the music all over the world as she has song in French and English language.--Teo628957 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your sources don't all back up the same thing. You used a variety of sources to form one opinion, an opinion which is your own and not verified completely by one reliable source, which is a Wikipedia must. Additionally, adding "over the next years" makes no sense at all. The point of Wikipedia is not to glorify Despina Vandi for her accomplishments, but to describe her in a neutral way. If you continue to add that I guarantee some random person will add something similar to say Vissi and then you two will fight over it as you have with certifications, sales, etc. Overall, regardless of whether you have "sources" stating this, there is a disagreement. In the case of a disagreement, the material should be excluded until the Wikipedia community decides if and how it should be presented. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I add many different sources in order to become the information more angled. But I can put the others out and leave only the most reliable. Also, I do not understand the threat and your obsession with Vissi. I do not care if you're a fan of Vissi, which makes you a non-objective person, you must accept those written for other artists. Also note that you erased things that add to Vandi article but are reliable and come from one source and for which no stated reason. If your love for Vissi make you lose your objectivity regarding other artists you might not participate in the articles. What I have offered to Wikipedia, have done by adding one or more sources and not general and vague.--Teo628957 (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only "fan" here is you claiming that Vandi is the best Greek singer ever. I was merely attempting to show you that other artists are just as popular; Vissi was the only one that came to mind. If someone was adding similar information to her article I would revert it as well. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:KoritsiPrama,Part1.png

Thank you for uploading File:KoritsiPrama,Part1.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles protected

Due to on-going edit warring, some articles you have edited related to Despina Vandi and Anna Vissi have been protected from editing. Please see Talk:Anna Vissi discography#Articles protected for more details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the articles due to a lack of activity, see Talk:Anna Vissi discography#Articles protected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:VandiWorldMusicAwards.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:VandiWorldMusicAwards.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me which criteria this image does not meet? --Teo628957 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFCC, Criterion 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I do not see how a picture Despina Vandi holding a trophy of an award increases readers understanding of the topic, and even less how its exclusion will be "detrimental to that understanding". The benefits of seeing Dispina Vandi herself are discounted as there are already free pictures of her in the article, so non-free content for this purpose is not necessary (per criteria one and 3a of the WP:NFCC). The trophy itself can also be discounted as it is not discussed in the article, so having a picture of it is not necessary. I don't see anything else in the photo which could increase reader's understanding of the topic. Also, there may be some free images out there of the same scene, this is not discussed in the fair use rationale, have the checks been made to ensure there are no free equivalent images? Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I unterstand. In your opinion in which category should this image include? --Teo628957 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, the image appears to be categorised correctly. If the image is indeed non-free as indicated, and does not pass all of the non-free content criteria, then unfortunately it will have to deleted from Wikipedia. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VandiWorldMusicAwards.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VandiWorldMusicAwards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'est La Vie

Hey Teo, now that the album is out, you will see that Iparhi Zoi is NOT on the album. You should have listened to me when I said that it was not possible for the new album to contain "Iparhi Zoi" !! :P Imperatore (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

We cannot keep editing like this. From now on, if you would like to discuss something, use the talk page. Do not attempt to smush an uninformed rationale into your edit summary assuming you are right. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

Please refrain from taking out sourced information. I don't know why you have some type of agenda against this specific artist, but Vissi's official website is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The argument you are using against it makes no sense. You are saying that the source is not from an official source that count sales, but then for Vandi you keep adding irrelevant sources like her site, various articles, and the chart show which as it has been discussed, is not affiliated with IFPI regardless. Her website is an official source that would be well aware of official certifications. Please refrain from reverting sourced information in the future from a reliable source. That is considered Vandalism, and consequences may ensue. If you wish to respond to this message, please respond on this page. I will be monitoring this talk page.Greekboy (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

You didn't use a MediaInspector chart, you used their data to make up your own chart. That is original research and will be reverted every time. There is no chart that reads "top songs amongst the Greek songs" or whatever you called it. It is general Greek airplay, which actually hasn't even been determined to be official or not; you need to prove it is. I have started a discussion and if you chose to continue with this revert war I will have no other choice but to contact an administrator. Respond to my concerns here please. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who say that someone can not post a song among other songs of its language as the source in which he refers to is official? Many others had done this with other songs. Also, the site radio1.gr, do exactly what I say, it takes only the Greek songs from media inspector and post them to his site. If you put out the foreign songs of the chart, you will see that everything I wrote is true. I can't do anything if you don't understand this. --Teo628957 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand both original research and synthesis. Wikipedia assumes we have no brain and all we are here to do is to record what other sources say. Synthesis of a source is when you take information from it and use it in a way that the source does not. With what you are proposing, we are opening a can of worms. Someone could look at the Media Inspector chart and say "oh this song was number one amongst the Greek songs released in the last week" when it was say 17th on the list. The chart only says overall airplay and that is the only thing it can be used for (assuming its deemed reliable). It does not have a "Greek songs airplay" component. What you are trying to add is "Teo's Greek Language Airplay Chart" with your information being interpolated from general Greek Airplay. That is original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I asked you again, who say that someone can not post a song among other songs of its language as the source in which he refers to is official? As I can see it is acceptable otherwise neither other songs hadn't counted only Greek songs. --Teo628957 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the relevant policies above and explained how each of them applied. The list is official, but your synthesis of it to make your own list is not official. There is no official Greek songs only chart, only one that you have made up using data that is for something else. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent edit warring

I and other editors have asked you several times to not engage in edit warring. It is quite clear that you have ignored this instruction. Low levels of edit warring can be put up with, but the levels which are being seen on Despina Vandi are unacceptable. I have in the past just protected the page and asked everyone to take to the talk page, though for these articles that rarely happens. Also, it is difficult to miss that you have been reverting far more than anyone else on that article, and are going against at least three editors on this issue, which indicates to me that the obligation is more on you to get a consensus on your preferred changes. Being in the minority doesn't make somebody wrong, but it does mean you need to make your case on the talk page and try and reach a consensus. Please try and do so, as I will block this account if this level of edit warring continues. CT Cooper · talk 10:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, your version of the article does not seem to have NPOV, for example "is one of the most famous and successful Greek singers" - I think that's subjective. It would be better to try to reach a compromise and at least revise your edit, rather than simply reverting. The article already needs cleaning up, and this can't be done while you are reverting every edit Apau98 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Despina Vandi appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Your edits are just removing selected words and sections that appear to show the subject in a poor light. Doing this is not keeping the article with NPOV Apau98 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you understand that I replace sources from a site with sources from the official page of the writter of Vandi? This is not a fan point of view. Everything I have done is sourced. --Teo628957 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the text "and released two commercially unsuccessful albums" to "and released two commercially albums" taking out the word 'unsuccessful' renders the text nonsense, and is not making it 'more neutral'. You also deleted other text, with no explanation and removed other sources. To me this seems like vandalism. You are the only editor insisting on these changes, please reconsider your actions. Apau98 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I say I replace some articles which write some things for Vandi by a negative point of view and replace them by some oficcial sources as the site of her songwritter. As I know no other article for an artist say that her albums are unsuccessful, because and this is a vandalism. --Teo628957 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-checked the reverted text, because I was concerned that I may have reverted some good faith edits. I see that you added three sources, while deleting many more other sources, supporting those 'negative' statements, as well as text from the article. You seem to have removed any negative comment regarding the artist. This is not maintaining neutrality. Apau98 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you know Greeks but if you check these sources that I removed you will see that everything that they mention is negative for everyone that exist in the article, this is, also, not maintaining neutrality. Also, these articles judge themselves that many albums was unsuccessful not the people. The work of wikipedia is to quote the sales of an album and the peak of it on the charts and then the people can understand alone what is successful and what not. For example, they mention that the album 10 Xronia Mazi was unsuccessful although it became platinum and many songs peaked on the top 5. Although, an article say that the album was failure. This is not neutral. --Teo628957 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being neutral also includes not over glorifying and taking a positive view. A positive view is not a neutral view. Grk1011 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Greek, so I can't verify that source, but that's not the point, there are other editors who can and it appears to be acceptable. Whether the source is neutral or not, doesn't matter, Wikipedia is about presenting all information in a neutral point of view, not just the good info or the bad info so the readers can judge for themselves. We are looking for a balanced view, not biased one way or the other. If you are a fan, I realise this must seem unreasonable, but if you want to produce a fan site, you can always register a domain and make your own. Wikipedia is not here to host fan sites. Apau98 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Despina Vandi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Apau98 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still insisting on reverting to your version of the text, without making any effort to resolve the issues brought up by more than one editor. Please try to compromise. Your comment: "as I say don't delete references, add or delete only what you need, not all, it is easy)" holds true for you as well, yet you are still removing several references and creating a non-neutral version. I don't wish to get into an edit war with you, but I will revert one more time Apau98 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Despina Vandi, you may be blocked from editing. Apau98 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear the message is not getting through here. You have now exceeded the three revert rule on Despina Vandi and are now eligible for at least 24 hour block. I will give one last amnesty on grounds that I have not specifically mentioned the three revert rule previously, as it was not an issue up to now. However, any further edit warring on Despina Vandi, Anna Vissi, or Anna Vissi discography from this account within the next few days will result in a block of at least 72 hours. I'm pleased you have began a discussion on Talk:Anna Vissi, though the idea of discussing it on the talk page is to stop edit warring in the meantime. If the article is not in your preferred state, just leave it until the talk page discussion runs its course. CT Cooper · talk 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and KatrinofGreece

I have noticed that edits by you and KatrinofGreece (talk · contribs) are very similar. You also appear to have similar editing trends and a similar style of English. Is this an alternative account of yours? The Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy allows users to have multiple accounts for certain circumstances, however it states at WP:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts: Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited). Since both of you have been participating in edit warring Despina Vandi, per this policy, you are required to disclose any connection between you and KatrinofGreece. I would appreciate an honest response on this from you. Do you control the KatrinofGreece account, or in any way have a connection to it (for example, knowing the person who owns it)? CT Cooper · talk 16:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are only indications not proofs. The first time I saw the name of the user was some days ago on "view history" of Vandi. As you can see she came from Greece, so do I. It is not strange to have similar style of English as both of us came from Greece and it's not strange to have similar editing trends as the falsification points of the article are very clear and taken by only one source which reveal the view of a person for Vandi and not an objective view of her carreer. Not to mention that the user use this source against other for objective sources. Finally, despite the remarks on him and the reverts from many users (me, KathrinofGreece, Tsironick, Imperatore and many others) he continue to revert the article. --Teo628957 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. I was not making accusations, I was asking a question. I will take your answer from above to be "no". CT Cooper · talk 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my answer is "no". Can you do something to stop the reverts of GreekStar12? For these reverts he use only one source, which based on the opinion of a person for Vandi. In order to use this source he take out many other sources. Also, there are many sourced parts of the biography which he change them taking out acceptables sources and put others. A look at "view history" will convince you. I can't understand why he does it. But his behavior is not acceptable. I forgot to say that he take out and a little part of the biography. I hope that you stop his reverts as there is no point to them. --Teo628957 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Despina Vandi

I have protected Despina Vandi and Despina Vandi discography from editing indefinitely, until efforts are made to resolve this dispute by discussion. I am trying to kick start the process by asking for a statement from all involved parties on their position in this dispute. Please leave a statement at Talk:Despina Vandi#Ending this edit war stating (a) what you want from this dispute, and (b) why you want it. References to policies and guidelines will strengthen your position. CT Cooper · talk 10:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero tolerance rule

Following a lack of input from multiple parties at Talk:Despina Vandi#Ending this edit war, I have reduced the protection on Despina Vandi and Despina Vandi discography to semi-protection. However, to prevent edit warring resuming again, a "zero tolerance rule" on enforcement of the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy is being put in place on both articles. The terms are below:

A blanket final warning is given to all parties of this dispute on edit warring to apply indefinitely.
A "zero tolerance rule" will apply to any further edit warring on either articles. Any further reverts (reversing another editors edits in whole or in part) on either article will result in a block of at least 24 hours for the editor(s) responsible, regardless of whether 3RR has been breached, or if the number of reverts is one or more. Significant leeway however will be given when:
- The reverting editor has recently commented on the article talk page, and the user they are reverting has not done so.
- For the very narrow range of edits exempt from 3RR.
All parties in this dispute are being notified of the "zero tolerance rule" via their user talk page (hence this message), and will have this apply to them once this has been done. Any new editor that attempts to edit war on these articles will be notified about the "zero tolerance rule" personally before it will apply to them.
An edit notice has been created as an additional reminder about the "zero tolerance rule".

Please see Talk:Despina Vandi#Zero tolerance for further details. CT Cooper · talk 11:57, 13 April 2011 (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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]