User talk:EmmanuelTzannes

February 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Adam9007. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Zakynthos, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EmmanuelTzannes, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi EmmanuelTzannes! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello EmmanuelTzannes, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Zakynthos have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zakynthos[edit]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your excellent work at Zakynthos! However, please take a little more time to properly arrange and cite your references, above all by using page numbers rather than book titles only. There are several helpful suggestions at WP:CITE. I personally recommend using the sfn format for short inline citations, and referencing the books in a "Sources" section, otherwise the citation list becomes unwieldy and unreadable. Cheers, and keep up the good work! Constantine ✍ 09:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Zakynthos. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I could use your help here. It seems to me that we have a very enthusiastic editor here with more zeal than ... knowledge of our guidelines, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EmmanuelTzannes, I have reverted the content you added which was previously removed by Drmies. This is written in a promotional style as if to encourage tourists to visit the island (which I am sure is beautiful). But this is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to offer neutrally written encyclopedia articles. Please read What Wikipedia is not, especially the second section about encyclopedic content. Two highly experienced editors who are also administrators have now told you the same thing. Perhaps a small part of this content might belong in the article, if neutrally presented, but you will need to gain consensus for that on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting work that is either referenced to credible sources or is based on actual experience. There is no promotion but statement of facts.

EmmanuelTzannes, adding content based on your actual experience is a violation of our core content policy that forbids original research. Please be aware that this is a collaborative project, and content will only stay in the article if it has consensus of all editors interested in the article. Two highly experienced editors (Drmies more than I) have concluded that this material is promotional. Don't you think that it would be a good idea to make your case for adding this material at Talk:Zakynthos? Please read about the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Talk: Zakynthos.

November 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Zakynthos, you may be blocked from editing. Eurodyne (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is my work so I am removing it.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Zakynthos. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism came from editors that deleted text without knowing the sources.

You have no right to remove material you added. At the bottom of the edit window I'm now writing in it says "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

You also don't seem to know the relevant sources very well, as is shown by your comments about the text I deleted. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Zakynthos. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:AGF. You're still being uncivil. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Zakynthos. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

"Dougie [sic], not sure if you have noticed but this is an article on Zakynthos, not the Trojan War"?[1] That's the last straw after repeated warnings about personal attacks, lack of assuming good faith, and ownership of articles. You have been blocked for 48 hours for persisting in all these things. If you try using an "affectionate" nickname as a putdown again, you'll be in more trouble. Please use the block time wisely, for instance by reading our civility policy, to become more aware of Wikipedia culture. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, Doug Weller, I thought this Trojan nightmare was over. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, EmmanuelTzannes. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EmmanuelTzannes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please point out the specific point on why my Zakynthos edits fail to meet Here to build an encyclopedia requirements? Please be specific rather than vague?

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Please review the guide to appealing blocks before making further requests. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EmmanuelTzannes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I actually asked two questions which are not Unblock requests at this time? Again, please point out the specific point on why my Zakynthos edits fail to meet Here to build an encyclopedia requirements? Please be specific rather than vague? We went through similar issues last year and another editor overrode Drmies and let me carry on. Why have matters changed again or is this just Drmies arbitrarily wiping out someone's work because he feels like it like he did last year?

Decline reason:

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Original research, refusal to communicate, ridiculously excessive detail, etc. explains rather well why your conduct was considered disruptive. And there are several other experienced editors confirming Drmies' account. Huon (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EmmanuelTzannes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I do not find the reasoning satisfactory at all. If people are too lazy to write interesting history about Kentucky or the United States then not sure why the Zakynthos entry should be deleted. A lot of work goes into writing and referencing the text, often using non-English sources, that are difficult to access. Many people appear to find the Zakynthos page interesting as it is tagged by many other sites and views have gone up significantly. Also, because it is indexed a reader is not forced to read all the text. They can click on various sub-headings and reach that particular section. It is very puzzling why writing constructive and interesting history is deemed disruptive by Wiki editors. Should we all revert to the lowest common denominator? Should we all write text that appeals to middle America? There are other histories which might not be important to some editors but might be important to other readers

Decline reason:

Refusing to listen to what multiple experienced editors and admins are telling you (and have been telling you for more than a year now), and continuing to insist that you are right and that everyone else is wrong, will not get you unblocked. If you make another unblock request along the same lines, you are likely to lose access to this talk page too. I urge you to take in the friendly advice offered by Cullen³²⁸ below and the feedback you are getting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Original research, refusal to communicate, ridiculously excessive detail, etc., and think very carefully before your next action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that you are clearly a talented writer and you tell a good tale, but the style of your writing in that article really is not suitable for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article should be dispassionate and written from a neutral point of view. It should not be a hagiography written with the people of its subject as heroes struggling against the evil foreigners, as a good deal of what I read there is. And an encyclopedia article should not carry such excessive detail. It's all in that ANI report. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EmmanuelTzannes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Actually, I did not insist I was right at all. I was mostly asking questions. Why is detailed and well referenced history deleted? Why is superficial history maintained? If you do not find the history interesting, is there not an awareness that other people might find it interesting?

Decline reason:

This is now the fourth time you have made an unblock request which does not address your block. Your ability to edit this page is permitted so that you may appeal the block; since it appears that you do not intend to do so, your talkpage access has been revoked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's been explained multiple times over the past year, and again now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Original research, refusal to communicate, ridiculously excessive detail, etc.. I've also added a little extra to my comments in your unblock request above. That you refuse to listen does not mean that it has not been explained. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you know little of the history of the place so I am not sure how you can make the judgement you made above. However, if you did not try to read the text carefully it is not only a struggle against foreigners, but also a struggle against the elites, a struggle against own failings, are struggle against nature etc. History is often a struggle of some sort.

(You should not put every reply in a new unblock request, just indent as I have done.) You have completely missed my point. The issue is not who or what the struggle is against, but the one-sided style of writing you use to portray that struggle. It's written in a style that makes extensive use of peacock terms, and is full of praise for the heroic people of Zakynthos while consistently damning their opponents. As a tale to rouse the spirits of the people, fine. As an encyclopedia article, not fine. It should be written in a style that makes it impossible for a reader to tell which side the writer supports, and that is very much not the case here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice[edit]

The guide to appealing blocks says: "Understand in full the reasons of your block before requesting an unblock. Put all the relevant information in the unblock request, and only that. Keep your mind calm and assume good faith on the part of our experienced administrators. If your appeal is rejected, do not make a new one until you thoroughly understand the reasons."

Start by reading the relevant talk page discussions with an open mind, and the discussion at ANI, making a sincere attempt to understand what other highly experienced editors have been trying to tell you since last year. Pay special attention to how articles about places like Sicily and Kentucky are structured. Review Wikipedia's Five Pillars, and then read about consensus and ownership. Once you have fully absorbed all of that, make an unblock request that includes a firm pledge to comply with all of our policies, guidelines and behavioral norms going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, how can one assume 'good faith on the part of administrators' when text is deleted and questions are asked later. EmmanuelTzannes

It appears, then, that your stubbornness and refusal to collaborate with your fellow editors on an collaborative project will prevent your return to editing. Had you cooperated, all of your properly referenced content would have been organized into a main article and a group of spinoff articles. But you refuse to cooperate with your fellow editors. That is very sad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How am I refusing to co-operate? I simply asked a number of questions. I cannot organise my material into an article and spin-off articles because I am blocked. How can one co-operate when there is no agency? EmmanuelTzannes

Your "questions" presuppose that those who disagree with you are arbitrary, lazy, don't know history, and are biased. That's not the way to work in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. I'm revoking talk page access since you aren't addressing the reasons for your block despite repeated warnings in past unblock requests and apparently fail to understand what others have told you. WP:UTRS remains available to you, but if you proceed there as you did here, you will also be blocked from that venue. Huon (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]