User talk:Lmagoutas

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demetrius of Thessaloniki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history at Arvanites shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can say that you are involved in an edit war with me. There is already a discussion in the talk page and people where fiercely aggressive and condescending to the person who at least to me, seemingly won the debate about at least changing the wording of the paragraph. You not wanting to see that and coming to my page to talk about edit wars is ironic to say the least. 62.74.57.225 (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Lmagoutas reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: ). Thank you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mentioning this having been discussed in the talk page but in the last debate that I read you gave absolutely no responses to the arguments of the person suggesting a very reasonable change to something that is "factual info" only if you engage with very one sided sources. As such I don't see a real reason for what you are doing here, as indeed, this has already been discussed in the talk page. Me writing that you were condescending and aggressive towards them being used against me somehow when this was so clearly the case is truly ironic. Lmagoutas (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Arvanites. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lmagoutas. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have used all but one account for the entirety of my edits. Which other accounts am I using, I am really curious to know. This is absurd. Lmagoutas (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Provided below

Decline reason:

Duplicate request placed in a section header; edits should be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header window. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have used all but one account for the entirety of my edits. Which other accounts am I using, I am really curious to know. This is absurd. Lmagoutas (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason for the block is described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lmagoutas/Archive. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not the same person as the user Nassis13

Decline reason:

The arguments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lmagoutas/Archive appear sound to me, and "I'm not that person" isn't convincing. Anyone can claim anything online, and your claims (both there and in your "I have thought long and hard..." paragraphs) don't seem to me to provide a better explanation than sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2024 (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.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lmagoutas/Archive

Greetings.

I have thought long and hard how to start this text but I think that being honest is my way to go, thus what I'll say is that I am not that account but at the same time I have no idea how to disprove this claim as I don't believe many of the arguments made are valid. More specifically, I don't even think most of the evidence to make this connection even makes sense in the first place like the fact that we both come from the same city and we use the same internet provider (which I am not even sure is accurate as my main connection is not Vodafone although I can see some reasons why this might have been the case for some of my edits but I will discuss this further later on). Other than that I find it absurd that this evidence that is presented is deemed enough to claim that I am that user either because of "behavioral" similarities because we were present in the same article at the same period, or because we both made our accounts from mobile phones.

The fact that I don't make edits often is just the result of me finding the incentive to do so rarely and not being accustomed to it. I never have used, nor do I have any intension to use any other account other than the one I am using here to make my edits. Overall, all I can say to this claim, is just that; that I am not that person using that account, as I can't for the life of me find any other way to prove my innocence against these sorts of claims based almost entirely on coincidence or bad connections and I hope that if the other person accused is to enter the conversation as well we can resolve this. Sincerely, if there is something I can actually do to prove that I am not that person I will do it but it really saddens me that such a claim is taken as fact so easily. If this will result in me having to disclose more personal information I trust that there will obviously be a limit to this, but I will try my best to help anyone who is willing to look onto this matter further in order for this issue to be resolved.

If I am to add some more notes, the only reason I can remember that my provider would have been Vodafone was at times that I used my phone's data to browse the internet when my home's internet connection was problematic, and that would also explain me being shown to be in a different city than the one I am actually in as this tends to happen. But that whole claim that is made through that observation has many holes in it to say the least. The only real claim I can see is edits made by both of us in the same article at approximately the same period, which I can only perceive as a coincidence, which in turn is only reinforced with bad peripheral claims that in reality are actually not at all indicative that me and that account are the same person. Funnily enough, and to In an attempt to be completely honest, when I first saw that my account was banned because of this I didn't even understand why one would sock-puppet in the first place and especially in this case as I am not familiar with the way this can against-the-rule-benefit anyone who wants to make an edit, and thus I could only make guesses about why would I even commit the crime I was accused of. In any case, if there is anyone who can guide me further on this, or even contact the other person to somehow prove that we are not the same person, in the case that this appeal is denied as well, I will be very glad.

Best regards. Lmagoutas (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please place new posts at the bottom so posts stay in chronological order. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure what that means or how to do that. Lmagoutas (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is there any update to my appeal? Is there something else I can do? Lmagoutas (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Hello, is there any update to my appeal? Lmagoutas (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already reviewed a request, I shouldn't review another. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot It has been over a month since the last time I have come to this page and still as I see there has been no update on my request -but for a random comment making a personal attack towards me for no reason-. Is there really anyone who can be directed that has the authority to review it? Lmagoutas (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no means to force people to review your request. Admins are limited in number and with time. Its also possible that none have found your request persuasive enough to take action. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never asked to force anyone and I am sorry if this is how you perceive my response, all I am asking if there *is* literally anyone who can review it. I also included in my response if there is someone who can help me with this case as well if it is not persuasive enough. Lmagoutas (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor Greetings, seeing that you are the moderator that has blocked my account, I would like to discuss whether I can do anything else to defend my case in its current form as I have already presented it above. In short my main arguments are, for starters, that the connection I was using at the time geolocated to Athens but this was common with mobile connections, and I believe that my current connection does not, so in reality me and the other user do not have the same IPs nor are in the same city, secondly, that the whole claim is based on a mere coincidence that two users with different IPs that geolocated wrongly to the same city in Greece, edited an article that concerns a population in Greece at roughly the same time frame, and thirdly, that the peripheral claims about my inactivity are not at all indicative that me and that account are the same person and are only used to reinforce an already weak claim. Thank you in advance for your time. Lmagoutas (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

The moderator who declined my request mentioned that they believe the arguments made against me are sound but I really don't believe this is the case as a) we don't have the same in with the other user and only geolocated to the same city most probably because I was using a mobile connection which I no longer do, b) they are only based on a time-frame coincidence of an edit in a page about a population in Greece, by two people from Greece, which is only reinforced a questionable attempt to claim that because of my inactivity this somehow means that me and that account are the same person. I understand the point about what anyone can claim, but I am putting it in the context of what I have already written in my argumentation. :::::::In short and for the next moderator who may see this my main arguments are, for starters, that the connection I was using at the time geolocated to Athens but this is common with mobile connections in Greece, and I believe that my current connection does not, so in reality me and the other user do not have the same IPs nor are in the same city, secondly, that the whole claim is based on a mere coincidence that two users with different IPs that geolocated wrongly to the same city in Greece, edited an article that concerns a population in Greece at roughly the same time frame, and thirdly, that the peripheral claims about my inactivity are not at all indicative that me and that account are the same person and are only used to reinforce an already weak claim.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2024 (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.