User talk:Omadeon

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent notice
As a beginner in wikipedia, although my account exists since 2007, I don't feel enough confidence yet in changing content or in who-gets-what-penalty.

However, I have written an 'urgent notice' in my sandbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Omadeon/sandbox ...where, basically, I wish to state clearly that certain allegations hurled against me personally, claiming... that I am "the one behind" user elp_Gr (as well as his 'sock-puppet' SentientContrarian) are provably false.

This story is also more like... the tip of an iceberg; NOT a pleasant story, either. I now understand perfectly the mistakes of user elp_gr. I believe that (if he is ever unblocked) he should never again edit the Takis Fotopoulos lemma, since he is emotionally too involved in it (problem "COI") (as I also explained in my sandbox). It's sad that he is banned forever, but it's up to the community to decide this. I would have normally asked for his "unblock" but hesitate (as a newbie in wikipedia) to do this, right now.

My own "urgent" points are explained, perhaps imperfectly, in my sandbox. Extreme violations of ethical rules of conduct, both wikipedia rules and general netiquette rules, have occurred; some of them (strangely enough) against me personally; others against elp_gr (and a friend of his).

P.S. I _also_ state clearly, in my sandbox, that I do _not_ consider myself suitable for editing the Takis Fotopoulos lemma in particular, OPENLY admitting I was involved in a personal conflict with him. This is also why I never even tried to do it, even though I was... tempted, at times (hehe). Unfortunately, it appears that elp_gr did not resist a... similar temptation.

Finally, just because certain people happen to know each other, and/or cooperate sometimes e.g. because someone else has made them all targets of his/her net-abuse... ...this does NOT imply that they are "the same person", or that they are... conspirators maliciously seeking to attack their... common attacker. Isn't this obvious, in life and in the net? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omadeon (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A more general comment now... As a beginner, I do NOT yet fully understand how wikipedia manages to solve an important problem, the following: 1. Quite often, people who have taken part in a conflict, are the ones who know most about it and can usually provide first-hand information about it. 2. However, these very same people, who have the most useful information, are also the ones who are most likely to be biased, because of their personal involvement. i.e. In any existing conflict, interview the participants. Should their testimonies be disregarded because they ARE participants in that conflict?

I have been, BTW, a bit harsh in my previous remarks. They should NOT be taken as doubts or denials of elp_gr's good faith, or of his personal honesty. It is human to be emotionally involved or biased; it does NOT imply dishonesty, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omadeon (talk • contribs) 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Omadeon (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)--Omadeon (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Omadeon. I have moved your message here, as it was inappropriate on User talk:Elp gr. I have read your message and the contents of your sandbox. Your complaint is about something that has been written on a website which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. While I understand your concerns, there is nothing we can do. We are an encyclopedia - we are not any form of authority who can look into matters on other websites. If you have concerns regarding the content of that website you would need to address them to the owners of the website, and if you do not get satisfaction, you may try the company which hosts the website. Regards  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)