Nikosgreencookie

Sophia N. Antonopoulou

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sophia N. Antonopoulou, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol6/vol6_no1_contributors.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Catching Fire - How Cooking Made Us Human (Profile books).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Catching Fire - How Cooking Made Us Human (Profile books).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sophia N. Antonopoulou

The article Sophia N. Antonopoulou has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Sophia N. Antonopoulou – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 08:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:SterVCP.gif

Thanks for uploading File:SterVCP.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Extended citation format

Hi Nikosgreencookie: I hope you don't mind, but I noticed that you've reformated a number of citations from the 'extended' format to the condensed format, writing: "I didn’t make any real changes. I just changed the "way" the citation is made using the "insert citation" tab of wiki. The extended citation used before “consumes” much space and make the editing really difficult."

I and other editors prefer the extended multi-line format for the same reason you stated! i.e. easier editing. In a number of articles which have lengthy paragraphs, its quite easy to get lost in the editing process trying to identify where text ends and a reference begins and vice versa. Editing in those instances is, at least for me, quite a bit quicker when the cites are layed out by lines which are visually distinct. I've actually made edit errors when dealing with compact format cites, and much prefer the extended version which only requires a bit of scrolling on your mousewheel.

Its not an issue worth much discussion, but I wanted to let you know that many others prefer the extended formatting style. As the French say: "Chaque a son gout" -Each to his/her own taste..... Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wim Kortenoeven

The article Wim Kortenoeven has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jan van de Beek

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jan van de Beek requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crusio (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Centre for Research on Globalisation

The article Centre for Research on Globalisation has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Centre for Research on Globalisation

Hello, Nikosgreencookie, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Research on Globalisation whether the article Centre for Research on Globalisation should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Centre for Research on Globalisation, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion notifications

Hi,

You recently received a message about either "Articles for Deletion" or "Proposed Deletion" of an article you created. I'd like to ask you a few quick questions, so that we can try to improve those notices in a WikiProject I work with:

1. Was the message helpful? Were the instructions clear and easy to follow?
2. If not, how do you think the message could be improved?
3. What do you think about the deletion process in general? Do you understand how to contest a deletion?

Feel free to answer here or send me your response by email (swallingwikimedia.org). I won't quote you or link your answers to your username if you don't feel comfortable with that. Your feedback is incredibly useful for improving the content of deletion notifications, so please take a minute to think about and answer these questions.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule (April 2012)

Your recent editing history 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. 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.

Furthermore, please refrain from levelling accusations at other users without evidence. Seriously, you basically claim that everyone who does not agree 100% with you is your enemy and/or threatens you. Please stop. SentientContrarian (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Nikosgreencookie reported by User:SentientContrarian (Result: Both 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I claim his actions are vandalism. I have sent a request to the administrators. According to wiki policy : "There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy; see below for details." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring. I told him that 2 primary sources in a total of 15 references is ok and the template is not appropriate. He return saying nothing concrete. Only generalizations. He could be more specific to his claims using a "citation needed" template. He is very new user (he registered for the first time @ 20 March 2012 and after only 3 minors editing he came to Takis Fotopoulos article claiming primary sources etc. I have left very specific notes to his user page regarding the followings: A user "10 days old" use offensive language against the other editors, he claims we are supporters of the Inclusive Democracy without a reference and leave messages to other users pages looking for "support". It looks to me he came here with a purpose. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM -- and edit warring over a tag is simply WP:LAME. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

to User:GabeMc regarding Roger Waters article (15.12.2013)

Could you please explain why you deleted a sentence with two references without even giving a reason?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Waters#Political_views

"In December 2013, Waters was again accused of antisemitism after an online interview in which he compared the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis to the treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany.[123][124]"

Nikosgreencookie (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe this to be WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK type stuff that really does not belong in a bio on Waters at this point, but lest someone accuse me of ownership I'll step back and let others decide. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont object to adding about the latest anti semite allegations but only when our way of doing this fits WP:NPOV which the current insertion absolutely FAILS to do, we must be balanced and not take one side or another (in this case the side of those attacking Waters was taken as the only side of the controversy we reported)♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In the process you deleted 2 references/citations one of them was his interview. What kind of "balance" are you looking for when people are not able to read Waters? Could you please bring back the references? Personally i just added the link to his interview. Beside that everything in the sentence was true. You could easily re-write the sentence and leave the citations there. No. You just deleted everything. AND the citations. Unacceptable. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP bio and so what I did was in no way unacceptable but if you want to re-frame what you wrote in an NPOV way why not do so here on this page first, you need to write in a balanced way as an editor and not rail against others cos you didnt do so♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nikosgreencookie, if you are going to accuse me of horrible and unacceptable things, could you please provide the diff of the edit which you are so upset about? User:John, made this edit, which is vastly superior to yours, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was talking to User:GabeMc. In reality my problem is that you deleted the reference to his original interview. You could do it in a better way. In any case the citation is back. And should be back. In reality i don't disagree with Waters except that i favor a one-state solution. In any case wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia but a war/propaganda machine. You can use it only as a very very very general reference. so I'm not gonna fight with anyone for every single phrase. :) Nikosgreencookie (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Its properly sourced now, so there is no need to pile up cites per WP:CITECLUTTER. Also, I'll remind you about WP:NOTAFORUM. This is absolutely WP:COATRACK/WP:NOTNEWS material, IMO. We aren't here to follow Waters' every comment regarding Israel. Is this notable enough for a bio? Not likely, maybe, but we are already in WP:UNDUE territory regarding this controversy, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

John's edit is exactly what I mean by a neutral take on the issue. Nikosgreencookie, it is your responsibility as editor to get this NPOV right, and in all your edits, its not the responsibility of any editor who may revert you♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The best source and the best citation is his own words. If you read the interview Waters says "(...) if you believe artists should be mute, emasculated, nodding dogs dangling aimlessly over the dashboard of life, you might be well advised to fuck off to the bar now (...)". If you like to eliminate his political views and see him "only" as artist you don't have idea what are you talking about. So yes we have to follow all his political views as well. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature (24.05.2014)

See also sections

Hi, "see also" sections should not contain links to articles that are already linked to in the main body of an article (see WP:MOS). The whole section should therefore be removed from Democracy & Nature. Also, it's fine to list editorial board members, if there are independent sources that document what these people did for the journal. Most editorial board members don't ever do anything for a journal, so unless there are sources, we don't list them, no matter how notable they are. The same goes for contributors. If you want to tell readers that John Doe contributed to a journal, you will need an independent source that confirms that this was a notable contribution. It is not enough that John Doe himself is notable. Please see our journal article writing guide and WP:NOTINHERITED. In addition, WP does not allow original research and/or synthesis. So unless you have independent reliable sources, all those "references" to the journal itself and claims that "significant debates" were ignited will have to go. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Democracy & Nature does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nikosgreencookie. You have new messages at Talk:Democracy & Nature ‎.
Message added 09:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm Gamaliel. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Democracy & Nature that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My comment and further discussion can be found here: [1]. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for this inadmissible personal attack reinforced with this trolling pseudodenial. See this ANI thread for a fuller rationale and suggestion for unblock conditions. 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.  Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The topic discussed here: [2] and there was no consensus among the admins. For example, Panda do not see an attack just a no civil behavior. It’s clear that I’m not a troll. Proof of this is my long editing history without "accidents". What is left is "protection" and/or "disruption". Doc do not see reasons for sanctions so far. Mendaliv believe yes but his decision is based on metaphysical reasons (what short of disruption I will create in the future, something like reading a magic ball). Doc's answer to him is very indicative: "We don't toss someone aside based on the assumption that "his or her disruptive behavior will continue". How do you know that for sure?," adding that "The punishment needs to fit the crime" and concluding "I see no evidence to support an indefinite block on this editor." Nikosgreencookie (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You show no ownership for the actions that led to your block, nor do you indicate at all that you intend to change your behavior or approach to dealing with other editors. Instead, all you have done is deflect the discussion away from your own misdeeds. Few are in agreement that your actions were beneficial for the encyclopedia, and minor disagreement over the length of the block does not mean that people feel that you should be allowed to use personal attacks to bully others into agreeing with you or going away. Unless you can indicate that you understand why you have been blocked, and also unambiguously indicate that you intend to change going forward, I see no reason to allow you to edit for the time being. Jayron32 03:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Yes, this is correct. My opposition argument at AN/I should not be used as the basis of your block appeal, BTW. What you must do is acknowledge that what you did was wrong, and assure that you will never repeat such behavior. Alluding to the hated term "Nazi" when referring to another editor is a major mistake. Doc talk 04:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked because according to Bishonen I’m a troll: (… shows him as not out of temper/out of control, but instead as a troll doing the "plausible deniability" dance”). A discussion started about it ([3]). So first admins have to decide if I’m a troll or not. I have to add that according to Bishonen's (and others on his side) logic Hillary Clinton is also a troll who slipped to Godwin's Law. I show it on the news today (source: [4]). Do not accuse me again for trolling. I refer to it because I show it on the front pages this morning. My defense line is what Panda said. It was not an attack. So first please decide if I’m a troll or not. But a troll is a troll and cannot change character so easy just giving cheap excuses here and there. On the other side I do not understand the logic of Doc on this point. He agree I’m not a troll but asking me to apologise for my behavior while I was blocked because they accused me for trolling. Sorry I do not really understand it.Nikosgreencookie (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm not going to accept an unblock request that is based almost entirely on the premise that if Hillary Clinton did it, it must be okay for you to do it. This is the kind of Wikilawyering that made you seem like a troll to begin with. Be straight with us if you want another chance. -- Atama頭 16:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

You do understand that by alluding to the term "Nazi" you have significantly changed the "political landscape" of your unblock, no? My take on this is that of diplomacy, learned through years of experience here. If you don't say something to reassure others that you won't be alluding to Nazis when referring to other editors, you will simply not be unblocked. You don't necessarily have to admit any guilt or wrongdoing if you simply realize that you cannot cross certain boundaries. I know that English is not your first language, and that's not a problem. What say you? Doc talk 04:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc9871 have you seen the comparison that Hillary Clinton did few days ago between Hitler and Putin? Have you seen anybody in the Obama administration or in the mas media to accuse her for trolling? The Bishonen blocked me accusing me for trolling. If he, you and others believe I’m a troll please keep blocking. If Hillary Clinton is a troll then I’m more than happy to be a troll too. If Hillary Clinton is not a troll then I’m not a troll too. If you believe I’m not a troll please first unblock and then block again for the right reasons. After that we would have a base for an evaluation based on the right accusations. Till then my defend line is what Hillary Clinton said “I would like to offer a historic perspective and not to compare Putin with Hitler”. Thanks. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Hillarys comments took place in March. Her words just popped up again in the media few days ago after Putin sent the compliment back to her in a interview. A day after her comments Hillary gave the following explanation :“So I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I am not making a comparison, but I am recommending that we can perhaps learn from this tactic that has been used before.” ([5]). Nikosgreencookie (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

“So I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I am not making a comparison, but I am recommending that we can perhaps learn from this tactic that has been used before.” Nikosgreencookie (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This still doesn't explain why you should be unblocked; just because somebody (anybody) has used a tactic somewhere (anywhere) sles does not make it acceptable for use on Wikipedia. I also strongly advise that you read the guide to appealing blocks before making any further unblock requests. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Bishonen blocked me accusing me for trolling. So my arguments are based on the reason given by Bishonen and not on what other admins claim. As editor I have done a lot of decent referencing work up to this point. I stand by my opinion that I’m not a troll. It's a misdiagnosis."Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias." There is not such an intent. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See the comment below from Boing! said Zebedee. Also, an unblock request based on wikilawyering over whether a particular word used (in this case "trolling") is appropriate, rather than on the substance of what you have done, is unlikely to succeed. I strongly suggest that if you choose to post another unblock request, then you make sure it actually addresses the reasons for your block, unlike the four you have posted so far, because if it doesn't then you are very likely to have talk page access removed, to prevent you from wasting yet more admin time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

You were not blocked with a vague "trolling" accusation, you were blocked specifically "for this inadmissible personal attack reinforced with this trolling pseudodenial", and those specific incidents are what you need to address, I'd have thought -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have told him what to do in order to be unblocked, but he is still using what I said at AN/I as the basis for his unblock requests. I don't know why he is doing this, especially after I told him not to. Nikosgreencookie is still not, IMHO, a "troll". I think it's more of an IDHT issue, personally. Doc talk 05:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nikosgreencookie - You have run yourself out of options. If your next unblock request is similar in any way to the other 4, your talk page access will be revoked and you will remain blocked indefinitely. So this really should be the very last time I will tell you this. Admit that using the term "Nazi" when alluding to the "book burning thing" was something that can easily be considered an egregious personal attack. Nobody buys your excuse that you weren't really alluding to the editor with the remark, trust me. Promise us all, and convince us, that it is something that you will never repeat again. Otherwise, you're going to stay blocked. Think about it carefully before you post another unblock request. Forget about the trolling accusation. This is your only viable chance to be unblocked. Doc talk 07:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tent cities has been nominated for discussion

Category:Tent cities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Daask (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Shanty towns in India

A tag has been placed on Category:Shanty towns in India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)