User talk:Bougatsa42

Welcome!

Hello, Bougatsa42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion and politics, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stances.
Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the subtleties of civility

I think your edit here shows promise that you understand the subtleties of how to proceed in a civil manner during a dispute without loudly maligning other editors, even though you use the term "vandalism" to refer to my edits, but I'll let that pass as a newbie mistake. I am therefore willing to accept your argument about referring in jest to editors being members of a well-known family etc. and I will reinstate your edit in good faith. I am only asking you, if you could agree to the removal of the part of your reply to me about "jumping..." etc. I wouldn't normally ask you that, if I thought you couldn't understand the finer subtleties of civil communication with other editors, but as I mentioned above, I think you do. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to discuss this further with you, except on a page where you cannot edit what I say.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SentientContrarian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Georgios Grivas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to do it? Sorry Bougatsa42 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at User talk:Dr.K shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I have reverted your messages on my talk multiple times. Do not post there again. I have nothing to discuss with you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meligalas

I have been thinking further the 'mass execution' aspect(i.e. whether I might be wrong about this). However I am told that if each person was tried individually then it can't be a mass execution. In any case, the description as was previously amended suggested that all surviving TAs were executed en masse, which was certainly not true: some were taken to another town and tried there, three I think being executed, and most of them were taken as prisoners to Kalamata. This last is documented everywhere including in F.O. reports.

About 700 were buried at Meligalas, almost all combatants, and presumably the ELAS fighters as well. I would be interested to know whether that cemetary was just for those executed or for everyone.

Personally I think it is very sad that a successful battle by brave men against collaborators, who have moreover been persecuting the surrounding villagers (hence the villagers' blood lust after the battle), should be used to beat them with for evermore, rather than the successful fighters being honoured. Bougatsa42 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Your recent editing history at Melina Mercouri shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Melina Merkouri. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mikis Theodorakis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mikis Theodorakis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Dr.K. still edit warring I see. Yawn ... Bougatsa42 (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bougatsa. I am not sure if I can come to an agreement with you but as a sign of good faith I will retract my report on you at AIV. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meligalas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Mitchell (comedian) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[Signatories]'[<ref>The Telegraph,Sunday 10 August 2014; BBC News Scotland Politics, 7 August 2014, http://www.bbc.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish 'love letter'

Partial apologies, I deleted your entry re David Aaronovitch, 'Scottish love letter'. The source you cited (BBC) doesn't mention DA, I later realised that there is a source (Telegraph … which you textually attach to the BBC link, but not as an independent ref.) which DOES list DA. I have to say that in NEITHER is the letter characterised as a 'love letter' by anyone other the Telegraph headline writers.Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All part of the game

I take it that I am being stalked by the lunatic fringe of the Greek right. I can't think of another way of interpreting the actions of someone who follows me from the Cretan Resistance to Judy Dench to David Aaronovitch.

The actions of Dr Constantine above speak for themselves.

Bullying was always part of the modus operandi of the Greek far right - why would they stop now?

David Mitchell

No, I don't know "damn well" it's him. Prove it. Gran² 08:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never having before heard of the writer David Mitchell, I thought you made a valid point, when you first made it. Since then, it has became very clear to me that David Mitchell (comedian) feels very strongly, and emotionally, about the issue. E.g. his article in the Observer of 15 May 2014, 'If Scotland does secede, I won't be alone in mourning for my country'. '[...] If Scotland ever goes it alone, those buoyed up as their sense of nationality gains accompanying sovereignty might take note of, and even fleetingly mourn, the fact that there are losers in that arrangement, too, and I'm not talking about oil revenues. The British will have lost their country.' This above article, like the letter of the 200 'celebrities', is totally emotional.

Of course, when Judy Dench (actress) thinks better of her signature to the letter, she can say, oh, it wasn't me, it was Judy Dench (librarian).

In the meantime David Mitchell (comedian) had not denied that he signed this letter. Bougatsa42 (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well why would he? Apart from us, nobody cares. I've said I'm sure it's him. But - at least to my understanding of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:OR etc - that's not how Wikipedia works. Everything 'points' to it, but it's all just circumstantial evidence. And, in this case, the writer is just as notable as the actor (type in David Mitchell on Google News and most of the links will be the writer). I've asked him on Twitter. I doubt he'll respond, but we'll see. Gran² 09:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia consensus appears now to be that the said signee is indeed David Mitchell (comedian)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bougatsa42 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bougatsa42. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bougatsa42. 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]

About your posts at Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. We do not use original research.

If you want to peddle conspiracy theories, you need to find another site -- especially if you're going to do it by responding to years-old conversations (the lack of responses aren't victories, they're a sign you missed the party). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, avoid personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article "The New World Order" makes no attempt to discuss the subject sensibly and impartially, is a waste of time in terms of informing people and should be deleted. Bougatsa42 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's always WP:AfD but if you take it there without a reason based on WP:Notability and related pages it would probably be seen as disruptive. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, something you need to consider: If the New World Order is not just tinfoil haberdashery, wouldn't we be a front for them? If they weren't some boogeyman, wouldn't there be a good chance that either Doug or I (probably both) are NWO agents? (For the record, I've got Adam Weishaupt on my bookshelf and I've read Morals and Dogma from cover to cover). And could you certain be there's really no way that logging in would give let the NWO know your IP address, which can be used to find your location?

If you sincerely believe the NWO is a thing, trying to expose them here would just be alerting them of a hole they'll patch sooner or later. If you understand on some level that it's just a ridiculous metaphor for more intellectually complex problems and you're just playing Fox Mulder, that's not what this site is for. But if you really do want to help the site, then following this site's policies and guidelines (instead of being crabby that someone else hasn't done your work to improve the article using professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources) is the best way to do that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

This[1] is clearly vandalism Doug Weller talk 11:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bougatsa42. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Doug Weller talk 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]