User talk:Sarandioti

File source problem with File:Cerciztopulli.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cerciztopulli.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will now add the creator of the file. --Sarandioti (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cerciztopulli.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cerciztopulli.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.105.177 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Epirotes
Removed the quotes. I believe Future Perfect was trying to poke some fun about the whole matter. If you care to look, The Wrong Version is actually tagged as a page intended to be "humorous". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't. We have almost reached consensus for its redirection, so I really dont think he could be joking about it. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarandioti, you seem to have been missing the inevitable irony in anybody linking to WP:WRONG. The whole point about that page is to remind people of the fact that administrators are not normally supposed to judge which of two versions in an edit war is "right" or "wrong" – except in some exceptionally outrageous cases of somebody edit-warring against clear consensus (and the present case doesn't rise to that level), most admins will just randomly protect wichever version they encounter first. And if you think this version had a clear consensus, you are mistaken: I think I, for one, made it quite clear in my very first posting to the talk page that I find this version ridiculously messed up. We might soon have a legitimate consensus for redirecting, but we certainly haven't got a consensus for that particular version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How soon will that soon be? Because Athenean is just postponing it. --Sarandioti (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, Athenean and I were having a very reasonable and constructive discussion. Unlike some here, he is actually a person one can talk with reasonably. Just try not to interrupt it too much and we might soon get somewhere, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this seem reasonable to you? . Pure greek nationalism.--Sarandioti (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus was reached finally, article redirected. --Sarandioti (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
For your continued indulgence in edit warring, despite being blocked for the very same offense just weeks ago, I have blocked your account for 1 month. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Vlorë
Consensus over the Greek name has not been established. The talk page clearly shows one user who is against having the name in the lead, and one user who is for it. Simply agreeing with one party and thus shifting the scales to a 2:1 majority does not entitle you to perform this edit to the article. This is exactly the sort of tendentious behavior that leads to edit wars in the first place. I request that you revert your edit on Vlorë and ask Athenean, Markussep and others to discuss on the article talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry case
A sockpuppetry case has been opened against you here:. --Athenean (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock
I have been unable to locate any such comment by Petersymonds referenced in the sockpuppet investigation archive or on his or your talk pages. Can you provide a link to it? Accounting4Taste: talk 18:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think this user should unblocked. First, his last confirmed sock was NguyenneyugN, which was blocked on December 23, less than six months ago.  He created that sock specifically to harass another user.  Second, I have good reason to believe that he is currently editing using yet another sockpuppet account, and I plan to file an SPI soon.  He also refuses to own up to half of his sock accounts, such as Alarichus, who was confirmed as one of his socks.  Alarichus was created a day after Sarandioti received a one month block, and Sarandioti didn't really edit after that block expired.  It was then found out that he and Alarichus had used the same IP address at one point, and he was rightly issued a three month block.  He then began socking with the Kreshnik account, and I believe he never really stopped.  ObserverFromAbove was new user strangely familiar with wikipedia who was reminiscent of Sarandioti, who edited from an open proxy.  He disappeared when it was blocked, then a few days later, another highly precocious account appeared.  Lastly, Sarandioti was a extremely disruptive troll, filled with an unequenchable hatred (and yes, I use that word to its full extent), as can be seen by his hateful comments here   (he praises the Pontic Greek Genocide).  This maniac has no place on wikipedia.  Athenean (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I poured my thoughts on Sarandioti's readmission at Daniel's talk page: User_talk:Daniel_Case. I think his appeal is sincere and Wikipedia would have less disruption while Sarandioti is around. --SulmuesLet's talk 07:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be something like biggest mistake since Wikipedia founding, as Sarandioti is blocked like problematic WP:DE editor, with multiple sockpuppets, and with awful pro-Albanian fighting attitude, so i am glad this pointless request has been denied. -- Tadijaspeaks 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)