User talk:KatrinofGreece

Sourcing note
Hi. On wikipedia, we need to be able to WP:VERIFY all information that is added. This is done through the use of a WP:CITATION which tells both readers and other editors where the information comes from. The citation must be to a specific article where the fact is stated, not a general link to a website as you did on IFPI Greece. Oftentimes, the source may be from a newspaper or an internet article, which may not always be accessible to everyone (see WP:PAYWALL), but overall there is a way that someone could find the published infrormation. When it comes to your IFPI Greece edit, you are claiming that you received this knowledge through an email. Because of WP:Verify, this is not acceptable. There is no way for someone to check your facts without sending an email themselves; to someone who may or may not write back or even be in a position to know. Unless you provide a proper citation to a published work, your information cannot be added. This isn't my opinion, this is a Wikipedia policy and I will have no choice but to report your actions if you continue editing in this way. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandi
First of all, don't go around accusing people of vandalizing an article, when you yourself have little knowledge of wikipedia policy. Secondly, there really is nothing for you to report to an admin, because in fact, you are the one who is making disruptive edits to the Vandi articles. The information on Vandi is sourced. You cannot go around taking out sourced content or sources. There was a consensus by several editors to keep the information, which means that other users obviously disagree with your views. You cannot just go against a consensus, you need to begin a discussion on the talkpage. Some of your edits are clearly vandalism, such as taking out a source that Vandi returned to Greece at age six just so nobody can see that source and use its other information. You also took out information about her dropping out of university etc; you can't just take out any negative information about an artist you like, because that is not neutral. A decision was made that in the cases that something controversial is said, it may be kept as long as the person who said it is cited. This means that a single source for something can be kept. Anyway, you are taking out other content too, ie about Vandi's career being in decline now for several years, which is sourced by three reliable sources, so not much you can do about that. By the way, Vandi herself admitted that her first albums were not successful, and that Phoebus was the reason for her career being established. Also, apart from you can see Vandi saying she had not won a Greek award ever before the WMA on Down Town (see her facebook), to be honest, I don't have to prove that she has not won seven Pop Corns, because there is only a source for three and unsourced content can be removed at anytime.

As for the discography, on chart show, they only said 3 albums had acheived sales of 100,000 or more. Check it out on youtube. Also, I don't have to source the video itself to prove it, that is actually discouraged. The show is cited. Vandi was on the show and there they said that 10 Entoles had sold 63 thousand copies. Artists/companies usually try to inflate their sales, so why would she let them say her album sold 40 thousand less while she was on the show??? Obviously all of this disproves that the album was certified 2x platinum. Your source, MAD TV, is generally a reliable source on Wikipedia for news, but those Spotlights and some of the bios are just created for promotional purposes and just take their info from the artist's commercial bios. This means that other sources outrank it. There is a recent newspaper source saying Profities only sold 100 thousand. There is a tonne of incorrect information on the MAD article, such as it saying Profities is Vandi's most successful album. Even the single sales of Gia are more than Profities. Also, if you consider that a reliable source, then you also agree that Ipofero is only 5x platinum, as it says. You can't just pick and choose what part of the source you like, all applies. As for Gia, even to this day the majority of sources say it has sold 170 thousand copies. The main source saying 200 thousand is Dragoumenos. This means that there is a public conflict between the sales and both should be included, not just the higher numbers that make Vandi look better. However it should be noted that 170 is more prominent, even ANT1 said those numbers. Despite journalist's generalizations, Ipofero was officially recognized as being the best selling single ever at Virgin Megastores. That is the official title it has earned, not overall. Don't forget that Virgin Megastores have not always been around and that they are not around in recent years, so this does not reflect the overall best selling single. The only reliable sources we have say that the single is 5x platinum; MAD TV said it was close to six but no update was given. Since this has been a debated issue on Wikipedia, you will need something more than a bio etc saying it is 6x plat. You'll need an actual news article from the time it was certified, or a photo, or a chart archive.GreekStar12 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry what is your problem? Do you understand that there was a user consensus to keep the information, which is sourced? As you can see above I made an attempt to reason with you, but I'm not going to waste my time with every random fan on here. If it's a language issue, then I would be happy to speak to you in Greek. Otherwise, your edits are disruptive and if you continue editing this way you'll be reported and eventually blocked.GreekStar12 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute with GreekStar12
Hello KatrinofGreece,

I recently protected Despina Vandi and Despina Vandi discography due to a continuous edit war between you and. Looking through your editing history your contributions seem to be dominated by reverts and edit warring, this is not a productive editing technique, and may get you blocked, please read the Edit warring policy. The talk page of articles is there to resolve disputes and discuss issues with editors, though I note the number of talk page edits from this account is zero. Also please review the No personal attacks and Civility policy, some of your comments such as this, are violations of these policies, and further violations may also get your account blocked.

GreekStar12 left me a message on my talk page putting his side of the dispute, see User talk:CT Cooper. GreekStar12 claims that there is already a consensus on this issue and that you are unwilling to discuss it. I would like to hear your views more clearly as well before I take any further action, so please feel free to post them here. Why do you continue edit warring with GreekStar12 and other editors? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but because of a personal problem I can't answer to you in order to understand what problem there is with this article. I will revert what the user GreekStar12 add and when I answer to your message, you will see what is right and what wrong and you will take a decision about who is wrong and who right.--KatrinofGreece (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are saying above. The gist I am getting though is that you are under the impression that continuing to edit war will resolve the issue. That is not correct; you should be willing to discuss the issue, and I want this edit warring to stop. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal problem". Is there a language barrier here? Are you using online translates to communicate? We will make allowances for that, but at the end of the day it is requirement that you are able to communicate in good English with other editors here. If you feel that you cannot discuss issues because of a language barrier, then I'm going to have to kindly ask that you self-assess whether it is appropriate that you continue to edit articles here. If you feel more confident speaking in Greek, then the Greek Wikipedia does welcome contributions. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Despina Vandi
I have protected Despina Vandi and Despina Vandi discography from editing indefinitely, until efforts are made to resolve this dispute by discussion. I am trying to kick start the process by asking for a statement from all involved parties on their position in this dispute. Please leave a statement at Talk:Despina Vandi stating (a) what you want from this dispute, and (b) why you want it. References to policies and guidelines will strengthen your position. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Zero tolerance rule
Following a lack of input from multiple parties at Talk:Despina Vandi, I have reduced the protection on Despina Vandi and Despina Vandi discography to semi-protection. However, to prevent edit warring resuming again, a "zero tolerance rule" on enforcement of the Edit warring policy is being put in place on both articles. The terms are below:


 * A blanket final warning is given to all parties of this dispute on edit warring to apply indefinitely.
 * A "zero tolerance rule" will apply to any further edit warring on either articles. Any further reverts (reversing another editors edits in whole or in part) on either article will result in a block of at least 24 hours for the editor(s) responsible, regardless of whether 3RR has been breached, or if the number of reverts is one or more. Significant leeway however will be given when:
 * The reverting editor has recently commented on the article talk page, and the user they are reverting has not done so.
 * For the very narrow range of edits exempt from 3RR.
 * All parties in this dispute are being notified of the "zero tolerance rule" via their user talk page (hence this message), and will have this apply to them once this has been done. Any new editor that attempts to edit war on these articles will be notified about the "zero tolerance rule" personally before it will apply to them.
 * An edit notice has been created as an additional reminder about the "zero tolerance rule".

Please see Talk:Despina Vandi for further details. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Greek certifications
Hi there. Good job on adding those Greek certifications, I wish I had time to do that before. Mind you, there is a very easy way to add certifications using the archived tables, using cite certification, or if the certification table is already used, using certification Table Entry. I edited some of the ones you added, feel free to ask if you have any questions. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Violation of zero tolerance rule
Hello,

It appears you have violated the "zero tolerance rule" on Despina Vandi by attempting to engage in edit warring with this revert. The terms of the "zero tolerance rule" are noted above, and states clearly that reverting other users contributions is not allowed. One exception to this is when "the reverting editor has recently commented on this talk page, and the user they are reverting has not done so", however this does not apply as has recently commented on the talk page, and you have not done so. As a result, any further reverts of this nature by you will result in a block. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You have now violated the "zero tolerance rule" for a second time with this revert. The only reason I'm not blocking you now is because the "zero tolerance rule" was recently amended. However, I clearly pointed attention to the change in a comment on the talk page, which you later placed another comment under - so I'm not sure exactly how you missed it? To ensure it does not happen again, I am going to re-iterate the recent change on this talk page: Reverting every time you comment on the talk page is still edit warring, and hence is no longer going to be accepted. You may only revert another editor if you have posted on the talk page, at least 72 hours have passed, and the person you are reverting has not responded. You began reverting at 15:45 27 May 2011, after commenting on the talk page at 14:57 27 May 2011. Therefore you waited just 48 minutes for someone to respond to your comments - not 72 hours as required by the "zero tolerance rule". Please do not make any further violations. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You have now broken the "zero tolerance rule" for the third time! What it is going to take for the message to get through that edit warring is unacceptable? Do you think I'm bluffing when I say that a violation will result in a block? It is only because I was not online yesterday that you weren't blocked, and this revert is now too stale to deal with. GreekStar12's edit was not a violation as it was adding new content, therefore it was not a revert. Given the amount of times you have now broken it, I am going to make clear that any further violations will result in a minimum block time of 72 hours, not 24 hours as normal. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the rule break when someone edit on the page or i'm wrong?? The user greekstar do it first. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The rule only restricts reverts not edits. A revert is when you reverse someone else's changes and put the article back into the state it was before they edited. Any edit that involves use of the "undo" button is a revert. GreekStar12 was adding new content to the article, so it was not a revert. In any case, if multiple users break the "zero tolerance rule" then I will consider blocking all of them - who did it first is not important. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, sorry, I misunderstood the meaning of the rule. But the user try to find fraudulent ways to make me look like rule's breaker. We haven't decided for many things yet that are related to the article and she add more trubles?? This is not good. Also, it seems that she doesn't admit that I have depleted almost all of her claims. With arguments and based on reliable articles Ι made clear that her articles aren't based on reliable researches. If you translate the dialogs you can get your own conclusion. If she continue like that we can't find a solution. I made many retreats but I'm not willing to make more, as long as I'm the only one. From her view, she say that she has, also, depleted mine sources, although when I call her to support whatever she says basen on something reliable she avoid this. Furthermore, she uses some sources in order to support whatever she says and when these sources don't serve her purposes she says things different for these that the sources write. I don't want to say more, if you translate my dialogs and manage to understand the full meaning of all these you can see clearly what I refer. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are not sure about the content of the rules, then you are free to contact me before editing the page. I don't see anything in GreekStar's actions that can be described as "fraudulent"; you have to take responsibility for your own actions, and just because someone is in disagreement with you doesn't mean they are being dishonest. I have translated the conservation as it has been going along, and while I do get the gist of it, there are some parts which do not translate well at all. In any case, as the administrator over seeing this it would not be appropriate for me to arbitrate on this dispute. If you cannot come to an agreement, I have left some suggestions on my talk page of other dispute resolution options you could go down. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent comments
GreekStar12 has informed me on my talk page that you referred to him as schizophrenic. I have done a translation of these comments, and the following remark appears in the translation "As for the sources I thought I had seen and there was basing your article but you apparently are all based on what I wrote a simple article and blamed me for a few sources. I think this borders on schizophrenia." Talk page discussion is about discussing the content of the article, not the personality of editors. Comments such as that are not only offensive to those they are aimed at, but also to people with such disabilities, and due to this such remarks are likely to result in a block. Please review the No personal attacks and Civility policies. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaint against GreekStar12
As I said on my talk page, I couldn't respond to your comment earlier as I was away on holiday. I have looked into the comments GreekStar12 left and none of them appear to contain serious personal attacks. Please bear in mind that criticisms of your actions are not personal attacks, though I would recommend that GreekStar12 avoid comments such as "get a life". CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for the answer. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)