John sargis

Welcome!

Hello, John sargis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --SarekOfVulcan 20:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The journal deletion review debate

Mr Sargis, if you read your talk page, I'd like to bring the following section I added to the debate to your attention:

(content pasted from Wikipedia:Deletion review)

Mr Sargis, I would like to point you to the fact that this is not the proper process to discuss the notability of your journal. The purpose of Deletion Review is merely to review whether the original act of deletion was done according to Wikipedia policy. The AfD debate had a clear consensus for deleting the article, as anonymous and new users' votes were discounted, in perfect accordance with policy. If you want to question the policy, I suggest you take your case somewhere else, for example to the Village Pump, which has a section for discussing existing policy.

I have refactored the discussion to show all votes in one place, to ease the job of the closing admin. Please place all future votes there, and please restrict any future discussion on this page to whether or not the article was deleted according to policy. I suggest you actually take a look at the relevant policies, instead of discrediting them as somehow 'wrong'. And please do not assume that everyone is against you because of some political motives, since that is called argumentum ad hominem and is not a very convincing debating technique.

Xoloz (talk · contribs) did indeed vote twice in the debate, but that is a very understandable mistake, given the confusing and huge nature of this debate. I have struck out his second vote in the 'Votes' section above. I've done the same with your second vote. - ulayiti (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(end of pasted content)

If you wish to make comments on anything else than the legitimate subject matter of Deletion Review outlined above, you may contact me on my talk page. Please remember to sign and date your entry by typing in four tildes (~~~~). - ulayiti (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - ulayiti (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

2nd Warning.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Jbamb 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive democracy

Actually, only 5 users have access to checkuser, which is what you are asking for. I already asked Jayjg to run a checkuser on those 2 accounts. Once the results are back, I'll see what I can do. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (2nd nomination)

Hi, you might like to get the editorial board to edit their announcements before you put them on Wikipedia pages. Iinternational Institute of Social History, Amsterdam ;) - FrancisTyers 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, before you make accusations or assumptions I would ask you to take a look at how both myself and User:ulayiti voted.

• Speedy keep notable. [1] [2] - FrancisTyers 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is notable. - ulayiti (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article will probably be kept anyway, but you might improve the chances of it being kept by being more careful, reading peoples comments etc. You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia, judging from your proposed wager. Neither I nor any of the other editors have the ability to permenantly protect a page. - FrancisTyers 04:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

pornographic perpetrator

"the pornographic perpetrator, have you found out who it is?" <-- I have been unable to find any evidence of a "pornographic perpetrator" at Inclusive Democracy. According to the deleted history, there were three edits of the page on 27 December 2005.

1. 15:59, 27 December 2005 Ulayiti deleted "Inclusive Democracy"
2. 09:02, 27 December 2005 . . Kappa (copyvio)
3. 08:59, 27 December 2005 . . Narap43
   

I guess it is possible that someone removed something from the history, but I see nothing pornographic in the page history now. --JWSchmidt 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

the reasons for blocking Wikipedia accounts

"banning would have given a moral lesson" <-- I doubt if the actions of Wikipedia administrators can do much towards the goal of moral education. Wikipedia administrators can act based on their past experience of what works best to facilitate the goal of online collaboration in creating an encyclopedia. In my view, the fundamental problem that exists with respect to the inclusive democracy-related articles is that some Wikipedia editors with personal interests in this topic have been editing these pages. I think it is best that people who are personally involved in a topic restrict their editing to the addition of comments to the discussion/talk pages of Wikipedia articles related to any topic that they are personally involved with. If there is factually incorrect or biased information in an article, document the problems on the talk page. If discussion on the talk page does not solve the problem, you can submit a request for comment and/or go directly to administrators for help. If that fails, you can request mediation or arbitration. --JWSchmidt 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Does this mean that the main, if not exclusive, criterion of editing in Wikipedia is that somebody ‘does not dominate’ an entry, even if this is clearly at the expense of reliability of the information provided?" It is possible for someone to dominate the editing of a Wikipedia article. This can be done when an editor provides a balanced account of a notable topic. It is important that all of the content of a Wikipedia article be verifiable. One editor can dominate a Wikipedia article if they are open to the addition of verifiable information that come from other editors. If a dispute arises over content, the dispute should be resolved by discussion that is centered on verification of facts. Sometimes there are two or more points of view with respect to how the facts should be presented. The Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy mandates that when it is possible to support multiple points of view with citations to published sources then multiple points of view must be included in a Wikipedia article. In this way, it is possible for Wikipedia articles to express contradictory points of view. If you feel that this is "at the expense of reliability" then you are free to not participate in the process. However, if advocates of one point of view withdraw from Wikipedia, then it is possible that their point of view will not be fairly represented within Wikipedia. It is also Wikipedia policy that there be no personal attacks by one editor against another. --JWSchmidt 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Found the penis vandal

The image you referred me to was not put into the article Inclusive Democracy, but it was put into {{copyvio}}, the template that said the article was a copyright violation. Thus, it was in all articles that had been marked as copyvios at that point. The vandalism was done by the anonymous IP 219.95.32.194 (talk · contribs) at 12:56 on 27 December, and it stayed there for 14 minutes until Hirudo (talk · contribs) reverted it. Here's a link to the article history and the vandal's edit. The vandal was warned by Hirudo, and the vandalism stopped, so there won't be any sanctions for that user. - ulayiti (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

According to APNIC whois, the IP is located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I don't know what you need that information for though. I'm quite certain this has nothing to do with your organisation, as the user vandalised lots of different copyright templates the same day. - ulayiti (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Image:Circpn reduced.jpg is not pornography, it's just a picture of a penis. - ulayiti (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I already told you the vandal has nothing to do with your group, so they can't possibly be calling you a 'prick'. The purpose of that image is not sexual arousal, it's there to illustrate a penis (and is used in the penis article for that purpose). Therefore, not porn. - ulayiti (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. - ulayiti (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. - ulayiti (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your AfD comments

I thought you might be interested in this. - FrancisTyers 14:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Block

Take your time to read the relevant policies on the case. You were warned and continued to rant against everybody and everything that you didn't like, and setting yourself as a "primary editor" of an article. Read the policies, and then come back. I'm going to re-nominate the Democracy & Nature. The AfD will be open when your block expires, so you'll have time to vote, but maybe you'll have to chance to read and reflect on other people's comments before you start ranting against Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing that. Let's have a clean process. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Stop your disruptive behavior

Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia articles are based on information that can be referenced and verified. You removed verifiable and referenced information from the article on Takis Fotopoulos simply because you saw that this information is not flattering either to Fotopoulos or the ideological faction he founded and of which I know you are a member (I'm talking about Inclusive Democracy). This is disruptive activity that borders on censorship and your behavior on Wikipedia is akin to that of a Shill. Furthermore, you Inclusive Democracy members need to learn to live with the fact that democracy means accepting the fact that not everyone will agree with you and that a truly unbiased article does mention even the negative points about a certain entity's activities, behavior and whatnot. If you cannot accept it, then please have the honesty and remove the "Democracy" bit from your ideological faction's name. If you do not refrain from starting edit wars, I shall have to report your activities to the administrators who will take appropriate action. Elp gr (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

The information that was replaced was neither referenced nor verifiable. What proof of "E" going bankrupt? Also, it is a distortion is to call ID a synthesis of Stalinism and plot theories with no substantiation at all. The dates of Takis' tenure as senior lecturer can be restored if you like. I see you like to call people names with your use of the word "shill". Interesting. john sargis (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition Actually, I believe it's valid to include Fotopoulos' lack of a PhD degree in this article; In his english-language CV, as posted on his own websiteEnglish-language bio for Takis Fotopoulos from his personal website, no postgraduate or doctoral studies are mentioned. In the Greek versionGreek-language bio for Takis Fotopoulos, again from his personal website, however, he does mention that he received a postgraduate degree in Economics from the London School of Economics. Do note, also, that, in the Greek version of his bio, Fotopoulos translates the english term "Senior Lecturer" as "καθηγητής", which is the Greek term for "Professor". Quite misleading on his behalf, no? 1) Takis received an MSc from the LSE in 1968. 2) there is no term corresponding to Senior Lecturer in Greek . In Greek universities above the title of lecturer in the hierarchy there are various kinds of “professor” titles . This is why the term “καθηγητης» was used but always followed by the English title senior lecturer. So, it is obvious that we have a libellous attack trying to defame Takis.

You say you need proof of scholarship from Athens University. The scholarship is called the “Varvaressos scholarship” (from the name of an Athens university professor who made the donation to the university); the scholarship was earned following a written and oral examination and competition with other candidates.

You ask for proof of his student and political activism.Takis was also taking an active part in the 1968 student movement in London, as well as in organizations of the revolutionary Greek Left during the struggle against the military junta in Greece (1967–74). (1967–74). He was a member of the “Revolutionary Socialist Groups” in London which published the paper “Μαμη» (midwife—from the Marxian dictum ‘violence is the midwife of revolution”. He has written several articles in this newspaper. Do you want Takis to provide a certificate from the organization???

This point you try to make:Takis Fotopoulos' (Τάκης Φωτόπουλος), born (1940-10-14) October 14, 1940, is a political philosopher and economist who founded the inclusive democracy movement. He is noted for his synthesis of the classical democracy with Stalinism, conspiracy theories and the radical currents in the new social movements.

This is a completely fabricated vandalism with no substantiation at all about the synthesis with Stalinism (criticized strongly together with the bureaucratic nature of soviet regimes generally: see The catastrophe of Marketization in the socialist growth economy http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/dn/vol5/fotopoulos_marketisation.htm and particularly chs 1-2 of Dependent Development (in Greek) for which Takis was condemned by the Greek Communist party youth movement as a fascist! Furthermore, Takis consistently in his writings condemned any kind of conspiracy theory –the main reason he criticized Naomi Klein’s book on neoliberalism which in ID is explained in structural changes within the capitalist system because of globalization and not because of conspiracies by “bad” economists (Friedman et al) and “bad” politicians (Reagan, Thacher et al).

Furthermore, you write that his movement's Greek chapter (which is in direct contact with him) has also accused the Free Software movement, as well as new media institutions such as Indymedia, Democracy Now! and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting of being accessories to the plans of what the Inclusive Democracy calls a "supernational elite".

First, this article was not written by Takis who always signs his writings but by another member of the Greek ID network. Second, the article is FULLY substantiated in its description of the role of Indymedia etc. Obviously, there is no “objective” truth on these matters and there is no place in any serious encyclopedia about how an editor assesses the biographee, about such controversial subjects, unless he just wants to libel TF and ID as this “editor” attempts to do with all this. If he wants to do a proper assessment he has to rely on a THIRD source and how a written article or book assesses Takis and ID on their views on the role of indymedia etc. Otherwise it is just a biased entry by a vandal “editor”. john sargis (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Eleftherotypia" has filed for bankruptcy already[1]. It's no-one's fault if you are unwilling to check for facts. Furthermore, would you perchance like Mr. Tassis' accusations against the Free Software movement, Democracy Now!, The Nation, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting etc from the Greek section of ID's own website to be translated to English so that everyone can see that you are actually trying to censor Wikipedia? As for the stalinism claims, although a recent announcement[2] by Mr. Fotopoulos himself gives reasons to believe that there is a heavy stalinist slant within Inclusive Democracy (seeing how he praises a commenter in a blog who defended ID, while telling other commenters to "rinse their mouths with soap before saying anything about Lenin or Stalin"), I must say I cannot be held responsible for this, since this addition was made by someone else. Check the article's history to see for yourself.

Furthermore, Mr. Fotopoulos' accusations against the Greek blog "You Pay Your Crisis" (he downright accused it of being an instrument of the Israeli Embassy), as well as his claims of persecution by "systemic agents", in my eyes justify the "conspiracy theory" part. And while the contributor who attributes a stalinist inclination within ID could seem as a bit of a stretch, it is ID's quixotic fabrication of enemies and agents of "transnational elite" that have all set out to... destroy Mr. Fotopoulos (as if they don't have anything more serious to do) makes me believe that the claim has a good degree of truth in it. Also, you have failed to read the cautions behind the edit fields in Wikipedia: if you don't like the idea that your original post can (and probably will) be heavily edited, perhaps beyond recognition, stay away from Wikipedia. Here, everyone with knowledge on a certain matter can edit away, provided he or she can verify his or her claims. Oh, and while we're at it, it is claimed that Mr. Fotopoulos saw anti-dictatorship action while he was in London. The contributors who make this claim fail to mention when exactly his action took place, what organizations he was a member of and what actions he took, using reliable sources, preferably non-ID (newspapers of that time, historical records, that sort of thing). Of course, one can say that Inclusive Democracy and/or Mr. Fotopoulos said this or that if it is verified by providing links to ID's and/or Mr. Fotopoulos' comments, announcements, etc. As for the "substantiation" of Mr. Tassis' (who acts in complete agreement with Mr. Fotopoulos, as Mr. Fotopoulos himself has said about everything the ID's members do or say) in the article referenced, it is inadequate, to say the least, as it makes gigantic logical leaps.

Let me also remind you that the way you act here on Wikipedia (censorship attempts, removal of links pointing to certain announcements by ID and Mr. Fotopoulos, fabrication of enemies, etc) not only are evidence (and quite hard, at that) of a political faction's member(s) propagating conspiracy theories, but also remind me a lot of Stalin's practices. And one last thing: unfortunately for you, the whole history of modifications and edits to an article is visible here on Wikipedia. So, we know who contributed what and when - you just will never be able to say "oh, I didn't say this or that"; I'm saying this, because you have given me no reason to believe that you assume other contributors act in good faith or that you act in good faith yourself. Enough with this persecution complex you ID members have demonstrated. Welcome to the internet; if you can't handle it, stay away from it (and don't make me translate Mr. Fotopoulos' calls for the abolition of anonymity on the internet and the enforcement of "ethics" that will basically silence anyone who might disagree with him even a little). Elp gr (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Elefhterotypia, it may have had filed for bankruptcy, but is not bankrupt, as you added to Takis Fotopoulos' bio. This is different and as a matter of fact the reason it was shut was because there is a major strike of its workers and now there are negotiations with foreign funds for its possible sale.

Mr Tassis' accusations about the aforementioned new media in the Greek article are very well substantiated with Secondary sources etc., in contrast to your sheer speculations and personal unsubstantiated views, which are alien to every encyclopedia. (You say: “it is inadequate, to say the least, as it makes gigantic logical leaps” – this is sheer personal speculation). No one tried to censor Wikipedia (!), and this allegation is just heavy slander coming from a maliciously-prone Wikipedia editor against Inclusive Democracy. There is no shred of evidence for this allegation. And no one asked for censorship in general. What Fotopoulos has asked in another Greek article is self-management of bloggers, so that internet slander is prevented, which is part of the democratic/libertarian socialist tradition.[3]

The above-mentioned commentor of a blog of course doesn' t define in any means Inclusive Democracy and Fotopoulos or is identified with it.What you say is as if someone wrote something just or positive for someone in a web site and then s/he jumped to irrelevant conclusions about different issues like Stalin etc., and then you attributed the commenter' views to the person whom he praised. Connecting these issues and identifying Stalinism with ID is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. Generally, in Wikipedia, and especially in biographical fields of living persons(WP:ALIVE), there is a very clear written instruction that "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". And that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". (Like your unsubstantiated alterations/additions, motivated evidently by self-interest).

Fotopoulos didn' t of course accuse the Greek blog "You Pay Your Crisis" of being an instrument of the Israeli Embassy, and in fact he corrected this blatant misinterpretation of the owner of the blog "You Pay Your Crisis" [4]. In fact it is the owner of that blog who censored in the first place Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos (including his answer to this misinterpretation), as is revealed here. [5] and here is Takis Fotopoulos’ and others’ censored polite answers that were never posted in the blog[6].

As regards "Systemic Agents", this was in fact a substantiated reply by Inclusive Democracy (and not Fotopoulos himself) to a group of a political organization hostile to Inclusive Democracy, who in the first place called repeatedly Fotopoulos an "Agent". [7]. It didn’ t have to do with conspiracy, but with the objective role some of these people played in the movement, by personally slandering repeatedly and without any shame activists like Mr. Fotopoulos, because this is obviously their main way to answer to the strictly political critique of the currents they represent.

Of course Mr. Fotopoulos’ anti-dictatorial action and participation is verifiable as it can be proved if you contact anyone of his former colleagues in this journal "Μαμή", in contrast to your speculations that are not verifiable.

Finally, of course you have not any right at all to alter Wikipedia entries just because of what you personally believe. Wikipedia is talking about “Neutral Views”, substantiated with published and serious Secondary sources and not personal speculation. (You altered the meaning of an author’ s work just by saying ‘’“but also remind me a lot of Stalin's practices”’’ – this is the essence of vandalism). Again, your allegations about “censorship”, “abolition of anonymity” on behalf of Takis Fotopoulos etc., as was shown above are completely fake and just your own personal beliefs, or beliefs of a tiny minority, which as is shown in the Greek links above, are very hostile to the Inclusive Democracy project. What Fotopoulos said in his article above is that anonymity has been implemented for protecting people against authority, and not slanderers against anti-systemic activists.Panlis (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not my fault that Mr. Fotopoulos has embarked on a smear campaign against Democracy Now!, the Free Software movement etc. If he didn't want his crypto-antisemitism (as expressed in his claim that his critics are... instruments of the Israeli Embassy) to go on a Wikipedia article about him, he shouldn't have expressed it. Neither should he have claimed that he is the victim of any persecution. Elp gr (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I replied above to the slander that Fotopoulos says "his critics are instruments of the Israeli Embassy". This is a libellous claim as no one claimed this. Fotopoulos in his answer to the blogger of "You Pay Your Crisis" who censored his polite answer, said that the blog takes the same stand on the matter with Israeli Embassy, not that is an instrument of the Israeli Embassy, as you distorted. This, in fact, is what the blogger said in order to excuse herself for having censored him and ID (so this is a biased unsubstantiated opinion, just copying hers). In fact what is libellous is what you say about Fotopoulos being an anti-Semite, because another text (not even his) criticizes some of the new media mentioned above for being Zionism-friendly. Of course this can be deemed as a blatant distortion and a pure libel.Panlis (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Puzzling comment

Hello John sargis. I'm an administrator, and User:SentientContrarian has expressed concern about your comment to him. Can you explain what you are trying to say to Sentient contrarian here? Your comment does not mention anything specific, so it is not clear how he can respond to you. Please note also that your signature does not work right. There is nobody named 'Johnsargis.' You should consider going to Special:Preferences and then clearing the checkbox under 'signature.' Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed. It was just a comment. He is free to reply if he likes. I made an error of not putting a space between my first and last name. Sorry for the inconvenience. John sargis(talk)7:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Democracy & Nature may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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:

• tradition (James O’Connor) as well as to the rising, at the time, the radical Green movement (Bookchin,[[ Arne Naess]], [[Henryk Skolimowski]] , [[Ward Churchill]] and [[Robyn Eckersley]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, John sargis. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Democracy & Nature, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democracy & Nature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arne Naess and James O'Connor. 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) 09:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Warnings

I moved the warnings from your userpage to your talk page. They do not belong there. However, you do not need to keep these here if you don't want to. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on archiving this page as it's not necessary to keep these up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on Takis Fotopoulos

Your edit violates your topic ban. I have requested appropriate sanction against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Another edit that violates his topic ban is right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inclusive_Democracy&oldid=871021770 Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

He did it again in September 2017. See here. Looks like he simply doesn't want to get it.

Topic ban notification

As I stated in closing this discussion, because of the concerns expressed there, you are topic-banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy, broadly construed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

He violated his topic ban: Here's the proof.