User talk:PeterSorin

November 2017
Hello, I'm LynxTufts. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Mihalis Safras have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. LynxTufts (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

man i present the data thats on all social networks sorry

Potentially defamatory content at Mihalis Safras
Hi there, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I don't know or care what your personal objection is with Mihalis Safras, but the bulk of your recent edits, etc. have added potentially defamatory, and very poorly sourced content at that article. Wikipedia is not a gossip mill. Wikipedia doesn't exist to fuel DJ beefs. Wikipedia is not a news source. Wikipedia isn't Worldstar Hip Hop. So, since you've been reverted numerous times by another editor, you need to open a discussion at Talk:Mihalis Safras and seek consensus for the inclusion of the content you are trying to include about the subject's plagiarism accusations. I don't know anything about the references you are trying to use, but we typically only care what reliable mainstream sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy would have to say about an issue like this. I don't think a primary source (in this case, an interview) would necessarily be suitable to warrant inclusion in the article. When sources care about these accusations independently, and are writing about it independently, then you'd have a stronger argument for inclusion of neutral coverage of the subject.

Note that if you submit the content again without consensus to do so, your editing privileges will be interrupted, because you've been engaged in an edit-war. Your remedy is to discuss in good faith. If you achieve no consensus, you can try a dispute resolution option. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Guys the encyclopedia must provide all the required information on the web.Protecting a user who does not inform people about new developments is not the best.
 * Have people spoken publicly with articles and interviews and you talk to me about defamation? This is ridiculous and not at all objective.
 * Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSorin (talk • contribs) 18:13, November 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which parts of my explanation above you are confused about, but the one you should not be confused about is: Stop edit-warring and open a discussion. Once you're unblocked and are willing to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for inclusion of the content you keep forcing in the article, you can be more specific about what you mean by "all the required information on the web." As noted, Wikipedia is not a news source or a gossip site and we're not here to fuel DJ beefs. If this content is at all noteworthy, and it may or may not be, it presumably will have been covered objectively by independent mainstream sources. In none of the edits listed above did you present content properly attributed to independent sources. Facebook accusations are useless. An interview is one-sided and presents no contrary perspective. Change-underground.com? What's that? That's not a mainstream source. Find an independent news source that reports on this. That'd be your first step.


 * I'm also curious about this edit, where you described the subject as "considered to be one of the most high-profiled rip-off artists and the most productive techno plagerism producer on the planet." You used http://www.residentadvisor.net/dj/mihalissafras as a reference, but no such quotation exists. Did you make this up? Because it can't be found at the link you included. Just at face value this would look like vandalism to most editors here, so I'm hoping for an explanation of where you got that quotation, and why on earth would you think that this is suitable content to include in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Don’t you understand or do you pretend not to and do it on purpose? The cases are not personal, people need to know the truth. I know what the wiki is and what should be shared, which is facts. Your arguments do not come from a person who is a wiki writer but without knowing the subject with exceptions to the truths I wrote. Equally important artists publicly criticize Safras' tactics and present their own stories that are similar to those of Tennan. Official Facebook pages by artists such as Metodi. Brigante, Ramirez is untrue ? Τhey are not reliable ? (Hahahaha) Why the Safras remix came down from Kaluki? because the stolen remix was replaced with another stolen ? Why did agnecy My Favourite Freaks and Nge Bookings have stopped managing and there is no Mihalis Safras on their official pages? He's very lucky cause Dj Awards did not get the prize back after such a scandal The official Safras site informs people that the Agency is the Nge Booking. Who is unreliable? Is it possible that all of these have been done and tell me that there is no credibility?

I hope you say it for fool because this is not good for a wiki by a writer.All the people know it has happened, and the only disciplinarian you become. Finally, I will not go back to the issue though I believe that all of this should be Online for the wiki's update and reliability.

Here’s mixmag’s article as well which is undeniably a very trustworthy source:http://mixmag.net/read/mihalis-safras-accused-of-plagiarism-by-multiple-producers-news

all I will do is turn to an objection with a message to the wiki

bye

November 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mihalis Safras. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eagleash (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mihalis Safras.

''As soon as your block expired you resumed with the same edits. Please carefully read all of the communications above and do not add the content again as that would likely lead to a longer if not indefinite block. Thank you.'' Eagleash (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The block is a big mistake Here’s mixmag’s article as well which is undeniably a very trustworthy source:http://mixmag.net/read/mihalis-safras-accused-of-plagiarism-by-multiple-producers-news

@eagleash you blocked me but I have not yet seen your answers. very meritocratic