User talk:Draganparis

Welcome!

My password has been broken and some pages vandalised in my name. I have to abandon thsi name. I am sorry. Draganparis (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Draganparis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lradrama 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I do not know whether this what I am doing now: writing on my "talk" page is OK. You never said "click on edit theis page" when asking question (for example). To answer your question: I do not like the "place" and probably will not stay. The changes that I introduced, that were politically indiferent and unbiased, where changed by strongly biased Greeek nationalist. You accepted this. So... I do not want to waist my time with you. I am sorry. Draganparis (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I don't see a question here. If you have one, feel free to reopen the help tag.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to get rid of the biased text that somebody introduced replacing my objective, unbiased textDraganparis (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example in the chapter on Hellenism, the excellent earlier text was removed and an inexact, incomlete text was introduced. Recently some my minor precisions were removed by an obviously biased author. For example, the Macedonian kingdom of Seleucides is called "Greek" what is simply false. The people who are not Hellenist experts should restraun of changeing the text on this page.

Actually sir I left your edits to that article 100% in tact, and the wording I removed (the redundant use of Macedon and Macedonia in the same sentence) was not even added by you, it was there before you got here. All I did to your edits was add a language template to the Greek letters for Thema that you contributed to the article (which just makes it say (Greek: θέμα) instead of just (θέμα).

That being said, I personally suspect that despite telling everyone to "keep their Macednonia/Greek disputes elsewhere", your purpose in changing the wording of many of these Hellenistic articles is to obfuscate them to a point where people who are reading (and writing) the new 'true' psuedo-histories on the net can come and find that Wikipedia is in agreement with their nonsense. Their (here's that word again) nationalistic agenda is simply to claim the 'heroes' of the ancient world like Alexander as their own national heroes. Making him Slav, Albanian, and any other ethnicity. So again, I didn't touch that edit, but please expect me to readily remove anything that blatantly doesn't comply with WP:V, WP:N, or WP:OR. Brando130 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brando for the explanation. I will go back to the Macedonia (Theme) to see where the problem is and will put may comment there eventually. The problem of “theme” is very hard since little is known about that expression that in the beginning had clear military meaning, to acquire much later, more administrative sense. Theme of Thessalonica was created about the time of Constantine VII and he characterised it as Macedonian. I think I wanted this to be left as Constantine VII wrote, although the status of that theme could have changed after him. I am sorry if I made some confusion.

What is obvious is that some politically interested “historians” instead of keepong their Macednonia/Greek disputes to be expressed at some other apropriate place, insist on introducing them all over the ancient history pages in Wikipedia. What is done is “systematic removal” of the word “Macedonia” from all texts related to the ancient Macedonian kingdom or later provinces that kept that expression down to the Ottoman empire. I do not know how any of these sides can profit (Greek or Macedonian) sinc the Ancient Macedonia is so distant and certainly is connected to any of modern states of today no more and no less as today’s Egypt or today’s Israel are connected to “their” ancient states. I must admit I was not able to grasp the meaning of your second paragraüph but if it contained some aggressive meaning I would like to ask you to present to me your appology. If I am wrong, the appology is due from my side.Draganparis (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no systematic removal. Anyone interested in Alexander, Seleucus, etc. can easily find on their articles that they are from Macedon, and from there they can read further about the Ancient Macedonians in their own article. Since English does not appear to be your first language, let me point out two thing which are important to note. One, the term 'Macedon' is often used in English instead of 'Macedonia' when speaking about the ancient kingdom. That practice is reflected in Wikipedia articles. Second, the terms "Hellenistic", etc. are widely used in English scholarship to refer to all Greek-speaking kingdoms of the period after Koine Greek was spread across the east. And so Wikipedia also reflects that trend of scholarship. There is no censorship of the fact that the ancient Macedonians had dominated the Greek-city states and were the founders of these kingdoms. That information is there for everyone to read. As for my aggressive tone, I do apologize. I've been quite a biter. Brando130 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diatribe on the use of the term Hellenism, and as much as I appreciate being called a Goog-Wik scientist, and condescendingly being told 'do not be afraid to be' as such, I'm afraid you may just be in the wrong place for the kind of changes you want to introduce.

Wikipedia follows the trends of current published scholarship, it doesn't permit any original research whatsoever. So, Wikipedia editors are not going to reduce or remove the use of the terms 'Hellenistic, Hellenism, Hellenized' etc, as long as the published, reliable sources used to write the articles also use those terms.

Thus, you either need to be prepared to reference reliable sources that also give your view, or make your arguments in the academic world, and not on Wikipedia talk, which is an unsuitable land for revisionist pioneers like yourself. :) Brando130 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi buddy, me again, just a whisper: Don't use the definitive article ("the") before saying Wikipedia and Google in your posts. Its never "on the Wikipedia" or "from the Google" - its always just "on Wikipedia" or "from Google" - the Google is immediately recognized by Americans as a Bushism and, while funny, takes away from the thrust of your arguments. Brando130 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you about WP:3RR, didn't I? When you breach a rule, you can expect to be blocked. --Laveol ^T 22:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to consider WP:good faith, which I was working in to implement your distortions. And WP:Consensus, which you need to establish when introducing new changes that aren't being accepted by the page's editors.

Your problem in general on Wikipedia has been that once someone disagrees with you, they are quickly called out as being 'not an expert' or 'not reliable', then you throw their opinions out the window and just move on, looking for the next person who is going to read your exhaustive, and largely flawed, arguments. Brando130 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening, man. I'll try again. I'm telling you that I disagree with you, and I'm working in good faith (that's good faith, seriously, click it) to accept your changes, while still disagreeing. That's how Wikipedia works. Last time you made these changes, someone else disagreed with you, and they changed your edits too. Then the idea is, you take the issue to the article's talk page, and you look for others who agree with you, you don't just force the changes. If you take it to talk and can't find consensus, you don't resume forcing the changes yourself.

We build the encyclopedia through the consensus of editors, a system I know you've expressed dissatisfaction with. You would like scholarly peer review, frankly with people that agree with you on top. But it does not exist here; if you insist on that, Wikipedia may just not be your encyclopedia. But personally I think the consensus policies are working far better than anyone really expected them to.

Calling me an 'insider of the Greek-FYROM Problem' is not really assuming good faith. And not that its your business, but just so that you can share my humor when I read that crap, I'll let you in on a fact; that if you were to put a questionnaire in front of me with 10 of the most basic questions on the Greek-Macedonia dispute, I would probably get about eight wrong; maybe seven, maybe nine. I hardly qualify as an insider. But hey, no offense taken, I'm pretty sure I accused you of a little Macedonian nationalism as well when you first arrived on Wikipedia. That certainly wasn't good faith on my part. Brando130 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the diadochoi states were Empires, so was the Empire of Alexander the great, I wasn't contesting that. I was contesting the fact that Alexander's Empire is called a Macedonian Empire. It isn't. As for the "ethnic Macedonian" question in antiquity, independently of what the origins of the people of Macedon was, it is uncontested that at least Alexander, Philip and all ruling house of Macedon in general, viewed and declared themselves as officially a Greek dynasty with origins from Argos. Secondly, after the hellenistic era began, the Macedonians were finally accepted into the Greek world and there's no question of separate ethnicity anymore (that's as far as Greece goes). As for the Hellenistic Kingdoms, those were composed by colonies founded by Greeks of many cities and not just one metropolis (mother city) like in the old colonisation days. This is the main difference between Hellenistic and ancient Greek colonisations, independence of a mother city. So really, there's no question of "ethnic macedonians" in that topic. To make such statements it's unscientific with a bit of chauvinism as it involves injecting a modern nationalist conflict into ancient, unrelated history. Many have tried doing that in wikipedia but it has never worked... Miskin (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again no single citation! Dear friend even today the European dinasties are almost all foreign dinasties. English royal family is German, for example. What difference does it make, the queen is the Queen of England! No question of ethnic Macedonians? 99% of Alexander’s generals were Macedonians, Diadichi were Macedonians, Ptolomys went so far as to merry their sisters! to keep the Macedonian line!!! The garisons, almost all garisons, had the core of macedonian units…. !!! You really do not know what you are talking about, I am sory (please do not be insultet, I mean it figurativelly). I am trying to figure out why the Greeks (I presume that you are Greek, but tell me please if you are not) want to remove the name “Macedonia” from history? It is bewildering! You will force me to count the word “Macedonia” in Arrian, Diodorus, Justin (Trogus), Curtius or Plutarch, who are only existing early, but still tertiary sources on Alexanders biographies. I see that you and your “landsman” Kryston read and write English: please read one single book on history of Macedonia, read Hammond at least. Let alone the biographies. You will understand where is the emphasis of imperial power from the seconf half of 4th centuri to the 2nd century. It is ON MACEDONIA. Macedonia that has tremendous Hellenistic cultural impact, but Macedonia and NOT Hellas. There is no other solution then just reading. Please. I suported what I said with number of references that I gave, and your changes are pure vandalism, so I will take steps to punish you, I am sorry. If you are Greek nationalist, and since Macedonians were or become probably closer to the Hellens then to ANY other people in their surounding at that time, why do you then repudiate their importance? You are probably as much Macedonians as they are Greeks? I will never understand your absurd and certainly erroneous thinking. Please come back to this page AFTER HAVING READ some of the references that I gave you, but NOT BEFORE.Draganparis (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan, the cultural/genetical distance between ancient and modern states is irrelevant to the edits you do. even if some other people are distant that does not by any means make you closer to them...and i even can disprove you there. you mention todays Egyptians that are different from Ancient Egyptians. they are because they were arabized. they lost their language. it was [1] and it became [2] in Greece (like China) though the language survived and with zero outside elements. Koine Greek is a direct ancestor of Modern Greek. any modern Greek speaker can still read and understand the coins and inscriptions from Alexander's time. see> [[3]] the coin speaks Greek. and says ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ. see closely. it means "of Alexander". i have a modern Greek keyboard and i can write Ancient Greek. again: [[4]] seleucid era coin [[5]] Greek text too. also notice the curly hair, common amongst Greeks today, rare among Slavs like you. ptolemaic >[6]. your futile try to sell Hellenistic era, as Macedonian era (or Makedonski era in your language) is not gonna succeed because people as you see from very different nations know the Spartans, know the Athenians, know the Macedonians ie know the Greeks. your right or not to use a regional term of Greek etymology[7] as your national name is too another subject..

also what you say about "permitted later that Hellenism, still guided by the Macedonian state establishments, enriched by various traditions, become culturaly and scientificly the most advanced period in our Western European history.": is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research learn what that means. you stated the direct opposite of the truth. have you ever heard of the Argead Dynasty? seems like you should.

for citations/sources/scholars/references see: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] realize that we are not propagandizing. we present scholar view about a pretty much scientific subject CuteHappyBrute (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I commented on all points and produced mine, in hope that you will also make the effort to address them in a more academic way than you did yours, I have to tell you that lack of research and blind use of nationalistic sites such as the above are not an acceptable way to conduct any kind of discussion. I knew that your level of understanding of ancient writings was low, but this? id you think I would not find the source of your "learned" questions? I was stricken by the similarity of style and arguments of questions I had accepted in the past, so I thought I would google them up to see if there was a precompiled text. To my amazement, EVERY SINGLE ONE of your "questions", was a blunt copy paste (comments included) from :

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/strabo.html

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/plutarch.html

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/arrian.html

!!!! Is this your knowledge on the matter? How low... GK1973 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer on your talk, please. But, did you expect me to respond to your propaganda and dumping page after page of empty imagination and nationalistic or conspiracy accusations, to answer again with normal academic response, as I did couple of times previously??? I sent you what I had already from blind quarrels of FYROM and Greek nationalists. I thought this would suit you better. But, dear friend. I answered on your talk and think that we brought the boat into calm waters. I said, in the end, these days were dynamic and we both learned something. In spite of all, it has been pleasure discussing with you in the end. My message to you is: read more original works. From time to time -may be every two years -I get in these blind discussions. Nex time I will use your text to persuade the next blind "Googwick" to start doing normal science and learn something. I hope that after this experience you will tray to produce useful work for Wikipedia. Good luck.Draganparis (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious you cannot handle to read long texts (then maybe you shouyld not have poses that many questions?), as is obvious you cannot handle writing long texts (which is also required in a "serious" discussion, where resorting to nationalistic sites is not acceptable). As far as this "complaining editor" is concerned.. he is another strange reactivated 10 edit single purpose account that happened to restart contributing to Wiki now that you have... (checked his history...coincidence? Maybe.) It is no perseverance that drives me, but some people's political agenda to attack history. My answers were exremely short, all points usually merit more analysis than what I gave and as far as references were concerned, I gave references as far as new data was concerned (for example Aeschynes). Giving proper references to generalities is not usually done unless asked for. Your points were also unreferenced (or sometimes malreferenced) and it was up to me to ask you for references where I found discrepancies. We were not writing in Wikipedia, we were supposedly engaged in an off-topic discussion.

I also suggest you don't harass me any more (I understood the quality of your knowledge long ago). You have shown your true face and there is no more point to expose you for the amateur you are. The very essence of this last post, a "tactical" retreat and effort to justify ignorance and lack of willingness to properly answer, especially when it is you who initiated this after my continuous demands that you stop, after contacting other editors to show them how I "avoided" arguing with you, after having been exposed as a copy paster from nationalistic sites, clearly shows what had to be shown.

You keep talking about references... I do provide references to ancient texts all the time (maybe more than I should).

You criticise my comments but do not do so with counterarguments (as I did), but with a general aforism, all too typical.

You criticise the length of my post, when yours was also pages long (of course not so long, but really telegraphic... you gave some 30 unreferenced texts / unnamed comments and expected shorter answers than 3-4 lines to each?)

You don't even find it appropriate to justify your selection of internet sources, when you keep posting accusing others of just doing a better job than the one you do when googling up information?

You are talking of my "premade" material, when it is obvious that even if it was premade it was by me? Unless you mean the ancient texts, in which case I humbly apologize, I did have them premade.. the ancients did all the work..

You criticise my arguments that have to do with the mythology of a people (actually only Hesiod and Hellanicus wrote mythology, the Argead part was considered history, as was the Dorian invasion, and not that ancient too), on what exact grounds? That mythology does not play a role in the understanding of the ethnic consciousness or history of a people?

As for Greeks.. they do not try to wipe out the term "Macedonia". It is you who seem to try to wipe out the word "Greece" and make it sound as something remote from the word "Hellas", while at the same time connect the word "Macedonia" with Republic of Macedonia only.

Boy... alea jacta est... I do not want you to answer my rhetorical questions. I will be keeping an eye on your presence and of this of these others seemingly single-purposed accounts. As long as you abide by the rules I will have no problem, but do expect a challenge if you try to push your POV inappropriately (as I expect myself to be treated if I show inapproriate conduct) GK1973 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Draganparis for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Antipastor (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(one quick comment) Please read WP:FAMILY, specially "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives" and "If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive pushing of point of view. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Draganparis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not pushing a point of view. I am signalling illegal and/or indecent events of significant political weight, containing spread of hate and nationalism on the history pages that are not correctly handled by an administrator. My complaint has been submitted.Draganparis (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should be thanking FisherQueen for being generous and only blocking you for a week. Accusing other users of being gang members out to get you is rarely if ever the correct course of action. Also, some of the remarks you have made in this unblock request could be taken as a legal threat, so until you can clarify whether or not that was your intent, you will not be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've fixed your request for you. I'm aware of your post at WP:ANI; that's how I came to examine your edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Draganparis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not imply external legal action. I need to be unblocked to explain to the administrators on one concise page my point of view. In the mean time I suggest that the administrators examine not only the discussions on Alexander the Great and Cyril and Methodius but also Talk pages of Draganparis and GK1973 for dumping irrelevant material (33 pages of text at one occasion were dumped on his Talk page - botom: hiden at the mommment!), loose language and nationalistic accusations. Thank you very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to explain, then right here on this page, without an unblock request is the valid place to try and explain. Regardless, you state that you want to explain your "point of view" - that POV seems to be what has got you blocked in the first place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hmmm. My POV: The evidence has been removed, a "consensus" finely arranged... To silence me I was blocked for a week... Not bad. I think that this has been a well organised setup.Draganparis (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Draganparis for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

I sincerely hope these accounts are not your puppets. GK1973 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Draganparis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Sir, I have to complain. Somebody blocked me unjustly on Wikipedia. (This all refers in reality to one unknown administrator.)

Would you please read my edits on Wikipedia (I know this is boring, but if you accepted to do the unpleasant “job”…). And read my explanations too. I have been accused to be sockpuppeting with two other persons from my surroundings. There is potential accusation related to 2 other editors too. I will deal with this also. First, I have nothing to do with Maxkrueg 1 or Maxkrueger editing, although the culprit(s) must be in my surrounding, but I ignore who they are. Judging from their edits, these users strongly disagreed with me and are unlikely to be cooperating with me for their edits on Wikipedia. I suspect a student (in fact there are 3 suspects!) from the department where I work, but will not pursue the investigation in order to protect the students from unnecessary trouble and because I consider the affair trivial.

As you must know (or will know after reviewing my case), I am aware that the IP address is known to Wikipedia administrators and that it would not be logical that I ignored this and sockpuppeted some editors, you should then logically come to the conclusion that I was not aware of the editing of some of my colleges.

I made my identity public to give Wikipedia a possibility to correctly investigate the case. You (Wikipedia Administrators) obviously ignored this unusual gesture.

There are unpleasant corollaries that should concern you. By blocking me you support the insulting behaviour and mockery tone of the users who accused me initially. They continue do dissipate insulting comments all over the pages that concern me and this just could not be overseen by the administrators.

There is a very serious problem accompanying this dispute. These users obviously pursue biased and concealed sockpuppetry with the intentions to promote nationalistic and basic racist tendencies on Wikipedia. Blocking me will only be damaging to Wikipedia. The issue is too serious to be just neglected as it seams there is intention to be neglected. Such racist and nationalistic discourses are forbidden by law in Europe and breaches of law could have far reaching consequences. I obviously do not have an intention to pursue this case further, but the danger exists that somebody else could.

Apologies, but I have to add another short comment. This concerns the other accusations. After analysing the intervention of the 3 or 4 other accused, I realised that their interventions, although opposing the views of “my opponents”, did not necessarily agree with my views again. Indeed, their use of my arguments is not a proof that they supported my views – they read my comments and used my arguments, this is quite logical. My opponents also use my arguments and also disagree with me! In fact the “accused” displayed the views that were quite different from my views. The 3 accused displayed clear pro-Macedonian (modern Macedonia) nationalistic points of views which I obviously do not share and never endorsed on these pages. If this would be also your opinion, even if all of them were operating from our common IP address – what I still doubt, then this could NOT BE a case of “sockpoppeting”. In this context, to say, as some of my opponents said, that their displaying disagreement is further proof of them being my sockpoppets, is just absurd. In addition, the fact that this could have been something what I could not control, then I should not be held responsible for this.

I would however plead again and again to the administrators to demand the editors involved in this disputes to restrain from mockery on my account (even on this very page as on the page where I reported some of my opponents for the violation of Wikipedia rules!) since this also violates the principle of good faith, reveals intention to insult me as a person and violates the principles of decent communication which are fundamental principles set by Wikipedia.

Would you please unblock me. Thank you very much.Draganparis (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The thing is Checkuser got a direct hit on you, meaning that you used the same computer (lab). CU compares IPs to each other, and only if the technical evidence for users is virtually identical is the "confirmed" result given out. Because the vast majority of administrators cannot challenge a CU block on their own (per checkuser and privacy policies), you may have better luck contacting either another checkuser or the en.wikipedia Arbitration Committee via email - they will be better equipped to deal with checkuser-based blocks. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks very much. There has been so much hate on these pages, so much primitive aggression. I was openly called a liar, I am a dabbler, troll sock puppet propagandist, scorn, draganparis dude, etc, mockeries like “Yep....blah blah, blah blah”. (Yet, the unconsciously drawn precise auto-portraits in fact.) Your advice is a great change. Thanks, I will see what can be done.Draganparis (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan said "Dear Sir, I have to complain." and reminds me of Monty Python:

M: I want to complain. C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through. M: No, I want to complain about... C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother. M: Oh! C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanos (talk • contribs) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To have a desire to be present in the “World” - to take part in knowledge and science, to be there! - but to fail to achieve this, must be so terrible, so painful, so deeply, deeply sad. Ignorance must be so awesome, so lonely… and so full of hate… I suggest you bring it all out, you will feel better.Draganparis (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? You don't like even Monty Pythons? No wonder... Simanos (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no wonder?Draganparis (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Macedonia are unfortunately strongly biased. This is not in the interest of Wikipedia. There is a group of Greeks, professionals or enthusiasts, who promote pan-Hellenism. Although I think we should be all proud to be Hellenes, we are unfortunately not all Hellenes and almost all would not like to be. People like to be what they believe to be and the majority believes that the objective history should be pursued in principle. These above mentioned courageous fighters for Hellenism prefer to hide behind their anonymity and diligently neutralize all my efforts to bring some objective history to the pages of Wikipedia. They erase all what I write on the corresponding pages. Therefore, I will run "chronicles" on bias on my talk page, thanks to a friendly advice of Taivo. From now on almost all what I will be objecting to the Ancient Macedonian (not modern Macedonia!) history pages on Wikipedia will be on my talk page. You are also welcome.Draganparis (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTICE concerning further edits of the articles on Macedonia (please do not remove this neutral information)

I would like to inform the community of the editors that:

1. I was accused of disruptive editing (1x) and sockpuppetry (1x) and banned for 2 days, and then for 2 weeks.

2. (REMOVED)

Below, under the title WP:ANI, a new investigation has been initiated. My responses to these new accusations (with their numerous new insulting comments) are below, and on the talk page of the administrator who is handling this case or on their talk pages.Draganparis (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________________

ATTENTION: Draganparis is devolving even further into a conspiracy nut. Seriously man do I need to link the no cabal thingie again? Simanos (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh you're only mentioning Greeks now :( What about your previous façade of being neutral and accusing editors from FYROM too? I guess you're mixing up your lies Simanos (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation= Draganparis was banned twice by admins with good reason and evidence (identical home IPs with sockpuppets and other evidence). Me and the other Greeks are from the same city or area (Greece has 2 major cities with 75% of total population duh), but our IPs are different so at best we might be friends or not. Plus we're not annoying enough for any admin to ban us. Conclusion if people disagree with Dragan they must be wrong (cause he is always right). If many people disagree then it's a conspiracy. 9-11 was an inside job and we never landed on the moon. Simanos (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for the comment. Please do not write IN the introducing paragraph. Write below the introducing paragraph and give there a citation from the paragraph if you need. I rearranged your comment now to be separated from my introductory paragraph. I will answer to your comment later since I am quite tired now. I just returned from Thessaloniki and learned very interesting things there which might interest you.Draganparis (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Have you read these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecians#Greeks_.28.CE.93.CF.81.CE.B1.CE.B9.CE.BA.CE.BF.CE.AF.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecus

and similar stuff Simanos (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O, yes I saw these articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately I did not see majority of the cited references. Some of that mythology I know, of course. Very interesting. Very often mythology gives a lot information of the real past, so it will be extremely interesting to find historical evidence which confirms (or does not confirm - which may also happen) these fantastic information. I also like mythology and would very much like that all what we read there is true. Past is so fantastic!Draganparis (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I remembered now: this is the article where Aristotle wrote "Republic" (!??!) and where I complained about the quality of the text, but nobody corrected it since! This is Wikipedia, unfortunately.Draganparis (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this point it's nearly impossible to find any historical evidence about the name Greek from mythology. Given that Greeks also go by other names like "Danaans", "Achaeans" and "Argives" I find your views specious at best. And why didn't you correct that error? I'm sure no one would revert a non-POV change of yours. Try it sometime. Simanos (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pages you cite are about mythology so this is fine so far it is not interpreted as history (as you and your group tries to do on history pages of Macedonia). But the entire article is badly written and these false citations make entire article just hopeless.There are more ridiculous mistakes like this about Aristotle writing Republic (Plato's well known work). Since I have to quarrel with you and other similar guys, I can not find time to correct such hopeless texts. And if I wrote the entire text... you would block me. By the way: I have unfortunately just a few original POVs. All I normally write are jst the achievements of other people. Indeed, I published my original POVs (look my list of publications). I do not use them here on Wikipedia. But what you call POV is often "other version of the truth", and not your version. Most often this is the scientific version of the truth, unfortunately - which you do not recognize. Like not accepting what Encyclopedia Britannica states about Cyril and Methodius (does not state anything!), but accepting what various tourist guides or second hand authors stated (they state "Greek brothers"), like the Pope (who is no reference in that respect!) or similar authors. Etc. (By the way, you see how normal discussion may be possible. Why do you behave so violently, so unfriendly on the discussion pages?)Draganparis (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More evasion, more of the same. Whatever dude, I've wasted enough time with you. Simanos (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has raised a thread concerning you at the above page. Please take a look, and I implore to to take a breath before you respond there. In the mean time, please don't go around threatening to report and block people as you seem to have been doing in the past few weeks [14] [15]. Both users were correct to remove it. Thanks. --SGGH ^ping! 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, again, but I think that this is not a crime to suspect somebody to be acting in concord with somebody else. Would you please tell me why it should be illegal to display the finding of the sockpuppetry investigation which, although not accusatory, may be relevant for the editing of the given page? Particularly if the suspects are in the same city, as this has been proved by an administrator for the mentioned group, and in addition! always blindly agreeing with the others? I identified a group of four or six editors who avoiding sourced justifications of arguments, always agree when a consensus is asked for, mainly not about validity of some source, but particularly when an opponent is to be blocked for insisting on some specific point. First they start with insults and mockery, and then my demand for a decent communication is also taken as disturbing, and demand is filed, as now, to block me. As I can see, the custom of insulting editors is spreading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius) and I am convinced that a discreet warning by the administrator would suffice to calm the spirits and would help have normal discussions. Punishing, no matter which side, is probably not a solution. Instead an advice and recommendation about how to resolve the blocked situation would be, I think, reasonable solution at this point. Draganparis (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree, however you are not an administrator, and several admins obviously deemed your notice inappropriate, largely because of your reaction when it was removed (threatening blocking and so on). The ANI thread raised about you was to deal with that aspect, not the dispute reslution (WP:ANI isn't for that). I suspect the dispute resolution processes would be more than happy to assist you, provided that both sides are happy not to ramp it up a notch at the first instance of disagreement. Have you filed a WP:RFC on the matter? I can provide you with some links if you wish. SGGH ^ping! 14:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called slander and it is a crime. Suspect all you want, but until you get evidence stop saying untrue defamations of other editors. Also spamming the same thing over and over again in almost every one of your posts is not informing the community. Let's not forget that you are the one actually blocked for trolling and for sock-puppets. And stop twisting the findings of investigations with your spin. We're not even all in the same city as you say. IPs are pretty similar for all Greece. And 70% of population is in 2 cities (Athens and Thessaloniki) so it's not a big coincidence that some are in the same city. You may see yourself as opponent as much as you like, but we did not block you. Uninvolved admins blocked you. When will you own up to your PROVEN mistakes? It is not healthy to be in denial or in conspiracy theorist mode all the time. Simanos (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above, in "Bias chronicles: Ancient Macedonia" I admitted of these errors. Your edit now does not help much calm the situation down.Draganparis (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that user Draganparis systematically slanders me and other users among which user Simanos. He methodically states his "fears" even when they are totally irrelevant, last time yesterday, which is indeed targeted spamming. SGGH, there is no disagreement and there is nothing to solve. I just demand that Drtaganparis is forced to stop "warning" the community about a danger he alone perceives and in the process slandering my and other users' names. If I kept writing that you "might" be a fanatic anticanadian user who "might" be a sock of all other US Wiki users, that would be quite possible no matter what the truth is. Draganparis maintains that the word "might" which he sometimes uses along with his accusations are excuse enough to say antything he wants. This is the problem and nothing more. Plain, simple systematic slander. GK (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could please Mr.GK (I presume GK1973) cite ONE INSULTING WORD that I ever addressed to him? At least one word please. Or to anybody else. Have I ever called somebody a layer, or used any other insulting word? On the contrary, I had to take insults of all sorts (even on these page); any my new source or a objection to their proposed sources (which were dumped from the propaganda sites, for example) which I criticize, point out to a problem, any new argument or slight disagreement - is taken to be disturbing, offending, it is trolling etc.

I stated my doubts that they, since their homes are obviously in the same city, may be communicating. Even if they do not communicate directly, their common point of view and extreme insistence on trivialities - that Alexander of Macedon is a "Greek" king for example and not just a "king of Macedon", that Cyril and Methodius are "Greek missionaries" and not just "missionaries (as the Encyclopedia Britannica states) - raise a suspicion in me that they have some other intentions. I repeated this 2-3 times - instead of producing argumentative discussion, they directly insulted me. If I would object, they will mock about this and ask me to go away.

I of course objected that the administrators do not protect me against personal insults. My insistence and bringing new evidence for my arguments are by them considered trolling (?!) and their insistence and insults, which are about 3-5 times more intense since they are 3-5 persons - is considered normal argumentation. I am projecting arguments and references, they are throwing personal insults and "reporting" me for disrupting editing. As soon as my name appeares - this is diruptiv editing. They are profiting form the fact that the voluntary administrators have too much work and cannot go into details and do not really see what is going on. I unfortunately never presented detailed report, always thinking that my opponents will come to reason. When I call, like now, for reason and decent communication, they are mocking about my demands. What could be done, please to stop this?Draganparis (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the paranoia continues... So [16] here is not slander?

or do you think that using the word "maybe" as in "maybe he is a convicted rapist hiding from justice" makes it a well justified, unbiased and friendly remark? I chose to write off the number from my nick for my own reasons and you know that it still is visible in the history of any article I edited since. I did not form new accounts nor would it be your job to even criticize that. In a single line you accuse me of being a member of some cabala, of wanting to hide from someone (why would I, anybody would wonder...) etc. And this "ATTENTION"!!?? What is this? Some kind of notification to editors to protect themselves? I can bring forward countless instances of personal attacks, blunt name-calling and insults towards me and other users but this is not what I am accusing you of here. The accusation is slander and, as it seems, you happily admit to it. And of course, there is much more proof of your misconduct presented in the ANI page. GK (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your free associations are NOT what I said. I mean what I say. When I say “might” means “may be and may be not”. When I say my be, means “there is possibility that”. Where is slander there? Why should I mean by this that “maybe he is a convicted rapist hiding from justice”???? I do not say that you are “a member of some cabala”. I say you might be exchanging ideas with some your neighbors, or already have the same ideas and then support each other without knowing each other. This is also kind of unfair collaborative editing.

You all avoid discussing my arguments and go for my personality and then you insult me (You wrote bakah blagh blagh, to me, remember?). I am paranoid – you even write this up HERE! I am lying… just look what you wrote. You forbid me to write some things: you say this is not my business? You changed your name and I want to inform people that the new name may be yours. It is probably legal to change the name but is indicative of a “need” and neither I nor many of other people want to be detectives all the time and look who this could be. Be strait, say who you are. You even know where my office is and what I do, and can call me by the phone at any moment! Yes, I am OPEN to you, to your arguments. Is this disturbing being sincere?

Then that language: “Cabala”???? What is this mystical word? The use of these words is what makes all look so dangerous and like murderous action. It is the same with the word “sockpuppet”. People do not do sockpuppeting. Never. They support each other opinion, most often because they agree on these issues. You agree with your “group” or, let say not group, with the “regulars” – how you call each other. OK, regulars agree. Well, if you agree, and I jump in and say I do not agree and give the arguments, when 4 of you jump on me and want to silence me (not to disapprove!! To silence me!) What is this than? Is this fair? They say “shut up this is solved, it is decided. Troll away!

Anothroskon dumps references form the propaganda site, you say it is perfect, administrators says “a reference is a reference”!!! But has anybody seen these references, please? Show the proof, give the “next page citation”. I explained this about references, to Anothroskon yesterday. I will explain you too, but just be patient and talk about arguments not about me. I have no clue what science is, you said to me. But you know, you said, so I would say now you should know what is a good reference, what is not! Now you know who I am and whether I know what the science is and how to handle database. You remember what you wrote and how you mocked about me? I could now ask you to show me your science, prove your “we did excavations in Macedonien”. If you are scientist give me one your paper to read, as a colleague. You have all my articles on the Internet, hundreds of them, just look up. But enough of this. This is just a pity. If the administrator (I just hope they read this) just warned us ONCE to use correct references, not to make personal attacks, not to use open defamation (words layer for example which was addressed to me number of times by Simanos!), Wikipedia could have been a nice place to be. But you can help. Make a new start with me. I am ready. Let us do as scientist do, yet we do not have to be scientist. But let us give a try. Let us just be fair. Science is nothing else, just fairness - with own consciousness.Draganparis (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... according to you,

being dumped in various pages means

....

I really hope you understand that this this not a believable excuse for anyone over 3 years old... GK (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest, yes.... of course I regard this dealing with you a surrealistic paranoia and I will continue describing as "blah blah" when confronted with incoherent rants like the ones you have amply provided me with. If you really consider these comments disrupting, slandering, uncivil or otherwise offensive you are free to report me... And yes, you have filled up pages with lies (not POVS, not arguments I do not agree with, but blunt lies) and I also can prove it, although I have not reported you for them. But these excuses of yours cannot be otherwise described, I think "surrealistically paranoid" is a very matching term... GK (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for just one example of me using insulting words in a way that is customary characterized as insulting, not what you take to be an insult. Yes I remember I was very sarcastic once, but I excused me immediately when you complained.

Please be reasonable. You can not hold responsible someone for what she/he you believe intended to say, but only for what was said. Also, an expressed suspicion of mine that you may be communicating with other users is not a crime. And even if you do communicate with other users, this also is not a crime but only violates the Wikipedia rules. This is not a combat of life and death but "should be" civilized discussion about various arguments and NOT about you and me and our presumed personalities. You do not have to be so extremely aggressive as you appear to be. If these my comments drive you so far, please do not communicate with me. This will immediately solve the problem. I started avoiding communicating with you just because I saw that you, in my opinion, overreact. You are just too sensitive. I fear that you will the word "overreact" also consider as insulting. Please: it is not. You claim to be a scientist (you have free access to "Jstor", you did excavations - why not?). OK, you have my telephone number, stay anonymous, I do not mind, but call me, let us talk like colleagues and solve the problem. I am not anonymous, I stand as I am in front of you. OK?Draganparis (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never "excused" yourself, instead you propagated this slander all around Wikipedia and even had the nerve of threatening the editors who reverted your spamming. As for thinking that your "intentions" are not clear, again I might ascribe it to your poor use of the English language but this is clearly not the case. Your admittance that your conduct violated Wikipedia rules also clearly shows that you were in knowledge of what you did and chose to do it. I have no wish to reveal my identity, nor discuss with you over a phone or even in a chat room. These discussion pages, where everything is recorded and archived for further use are much better. I warned you some weeks ago that I would not tolerate your misconduct anymore and instead you kept on spamming accusations/rumors/fears/personal conclusions etc. No matter what you name your edits, I did warn you to stop and instead you chose to disregard me and Wikipedia policy. So, DP, I am not overreacting. I am just protecting myself, 3-4 other users and the future victims of your "civility". GK (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said above to me: 'You never "excused" yourself'. What is this then below, my friend (taken from our edits Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, under 2 February)?

"My excuse: when I woke up this morning I read again my previous comment. Yes, I was insulting. I said "Try to read books, for a change-". This was not fair. Sorry, my friend. Have a nice day.Draganparis (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)"

You see: "Try to read books, for a change-" was my the most poisonous insult - and I ask you for excuses for this! Shell I list yours? Just look up this page...

You see, there is no need for insults. Self consciousness insults us the most. And we all have it. It may even terrorize us. I know that you have it, it will grab you when you realize that you were publicly unjust, unfair, incoherent and unfriendly. Without any obvious reason, just may be because of unfulfilled ambitions to overtake others in knowledge, or by being important scientist. I failed too. I become an important scientist, yes, but "this", it is something else. Strange, I always see before my eyes that statue of sitting Aristotle on the Aristotle's square in Thessaloniki, and this particular though makes me be calm and satisfied. This is may be "this", and one of the reasons why I oppose those who want to remove the Ancient Macedonia from history. Aristotle, who was from a Greek family, embraced Macedonia. You want to remove it, "this is all Greece!", you say. The FYROM people want to adopt it, to grab it, and you want to absorb it, to swallow it, and you both want may be to keep it away even from the past! Why don't you all leave it there where it was. Why?Draganparis (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GK (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Draganparis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There has been no legal treat in my edits. A text can not be interpreted to mean what some editors or administrators imagine that it may mean, but exactly what is explicitly written (see principle of charity). Please read the text, it contains explicit negation of a desire for legal action. This was a response to the accusations for an intention for legal action, which was an insinuation of the person (GK1973) who primarily defamed me and a part of his strategy to be protected from block for uncivil behaviour. On the contrary, I was even proposing to Wikipedia measures of protection against legal responsibility in similar circumstances and also proposing rational resolution of the current dispute with apologies which I presented to the other party and demanded their apology at the same time. My excuses were already presented. if they presented the excuses to me for explicit libel, our mutual problem would have been solved. It would have been on Wikipedia then to decide whether the other party would have to be punished for the explicit libel with an appropriate measure, block for some reasonable time or some other measures. This was what I explicitly stated. How could such a statement, which was clear, be interpreted as a legal treat, please?Draganparis (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In this edit you said I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately (emphasis mine) with the implication clearly being that you intend to in the future (also your comments at ANI seem to suggest the same) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Draganparis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry, this is an earlier edit and I did not consider that the connotation of "immediately" might be understood by some people as "but later yes". In my later edits I explained that this did not mean that I could take legal action in the future. Therefore this statement has been withdrawn already couple of edits before this decision. However, still, this could not be interpreted "but later I could take legal action". A sentence means what it says, not more than this. Of course there are more or less probable predictions, but these can be taken to be relevant only if some specific conditions apply. A sentence "I am not hungry now" may mean, may have an implied meaning that "I will be hungry in the future." because I am a being that gets hungry, in principle. But if I state "I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately" just says that I am not in a state to urge a legal action. But if I were a being that always takes legal actions, my sentence would have similar implied meaning as the sentence about being hungry. I declare that up to now I HAVE NEVER undertaken a legal action against anybody. I just never accused somebody in the court in my life. This is provable. In addition, in my later edits I rejected the insinuation of GK1973 that I in exactly this sentence threatened with a legal case and, what is supporting my contention, I further developed on the issue and I suggested to Wikipedia how to protect its editors (and indirectly itself) against such eventual actions in the future!!!! You misunderstood my later edits on ANI, I am afraid, or I just missed to make the issue clear? Although, I had at least 2 last edits which clearly state my intentions of protecting Wikipedia editors!! Please read my last edits. Also, by blocking me the explicit defamation (of GK1973 and Simanos of me) on the pages of Wikipedia will be officially approved, what does not serve a good image of Wikipedia. We were, I think, on the way of reconciliation. You can help. My apologies but my explanation will involve a kind of meta-reflexive approach and more confidence in what will be said then it could be expected from even slightly biased administrator, will be needed. Please assume good will, to start with. The administrators, I am afraid, should know what is my concept for being on Wikipedia. Such understanding will be essential for the reasonable response to my demand and the resolution of the current problem. I have not edited long articles up to now. It is my persuasion that Wikipedia needs constructive critique and systematic improvements. Only in this way it may become Encyclopedia. I will certainly edit some articles that belong to my expertise, but in a due course. To criticize, I have chosen the most difficult subject that probably exists on Wikipedia: history of ancient Macedonia. One of the reasons is that in my research I am close to one aspect of this (Aristotle's ethics) which is in the context of the Ancient Macedonia. The issue is complicated with actual politics and the dispute over the name of modern Republic of Macedonia, i.e., FYROM. It has been false to choose the most difficult case, may be. But on this example I am trying to achieve some improvements of method of Wikipedia by 1. insisting on correct use of the sources (citing and evaluation of references), and 2. the very sensitive and, may be impossible issue of resistance to the improvements, libel or tolerance in the discussion. This involves the risks to be blocked from time to time. The disputes, I think, I managed well up to now. Surprising is that during these discussions, while quarreling over civilized communication and correct use of the sources, the problem of “Disruptive editing” appears which is hard to avoid. Then, it happened already two times, the administrators decide to block me. Indeed, the discussions on the use of the sources and civilized communications are not very short and provoke not only the editors to judge them disruptive but also the administrators. Up to now I have not arrived to the solution of this problem. In the present case, we have come to the limit I think. The problem of sources has been transferred to the problem of defamation and concrete and frequent libel and my pointing out at the corollaries of such behavior, legal aspects, has brought up quite unpleasant issue: the assumption that I threatened Wikipedia, what is of course not the case. But without driving it to this limit, it was not possible to explicitly point out at the kind of errors that have been involved. My conclusion is, and I stated it in my last edits that are presented as my defense, that the administrators probably should raise their criteria for civilized communications and issue more frequent warnings. I believe that this will prompt the users to restrain from uncivilized communication. Thereby, further methodological corrections my be implemented, like more consequent sources citations, more tolerance in discussions and of course, more civility. The problem of disruptive editing in the course of such interventions of mine, I realize, will probably be solved by my shorter interventions and more precise articulations of the suggestions. I think that this dispute will rapidly be resolved as soon as I will be unblocked. However, I might abandon, and probably I should, this difficult issue and address more to the own editing and of course continue, may be, to be present on the issues which are less sensitive to such a critique. This may offer a chance for more compliance to the critique. Thank you for the understanding.Draganparis (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Excessive filibustering, bordering on WP:TLDNR. Your phrase grammatically suggested that you may take legal action later: that was a threat, and was intended to quell discussion. Your continued use of the word "defamation" above (again, a legal term) merely emphasizes the legal aspect of your interactions. If you have been "defamed", then you take it to WP:WQA and don't take things in your own hands. So far, I see no retraction of the violation of WP:NLT, merely attempts to argue them away. That doesn't cut it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Draganparis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You see, it is very hard to communicate in a normal way if the people who take part in communication are anonymous. A normal communication is possible only in direct contact and even e-mail message suffers from important shortcomings when the people know each other. On Wikipedia human resistance to learning and vanity are particularly visible. A desire to “judge” about the others is prominent and appears immediately after the slightest conflict of opinion. In my case the remotely possible and quite improbable implied vicious meaning has been always taken as the intended meaning. The expression “not immediately” is understood in the sense of “but in the later course”, i.e. as announcing a future action in spite of my denial of that intention. And this has been an extreme example. My other conditional and careful objections and insistence on some alternative hypotheses, was directly interpreted as absolute “rubbish” and these particular word or its synonyms, and person denigrating expression systematically followed by the oponents. This has been tolerated by the anonymous administrators who obviously did not examin the discussion (except just one, "Excirial", who was later mocked at by Simanos!). My careful measured comments were taken as they were interpreted from the opponents in opinion and not as my intention had been. This has been, for example, tolelrated (addressed to above administrator, the same or similar words were addressed to me on numbe rof occasions): "Remove your warning to me please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." There is ample evidence Draganparis is a sock-puppeteer, he was investigated twice and both times his socks were banned and he was blocked for a while. He was also blocked for disruptive editing (trolling). I mean, just look at his talk-page. It's one big personal attack and lies and trolling. Simanos (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)". And this is apparently an opinion which is supported: Maintaing "strict policies on personal attacks" are, well, perhaps something you need to reflect on - one man's personal attack is another man's honest critique.(...) Pedro : Chat 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC) (All examples are from Simanos talk page). The later administrator permitted himself to state: WP:TLDNR. When, I believe, his duty, if he got involved in the case at all, has been to carefully read my response. Otherwise, he should not have expressed an opinion. Therefore this has been, I would think, uninformed decision to start with and superficial treatment of a trivial conflict. The discussion about the subject of conflict has been going on for 4 years. I kindly request now an access to my profile to remove it from the site. Thank you.Draganparis (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This can quite reasonably be considered to be a legal threat. Your account will remain blocked until you explicitly state that you are not pursuing legal action in conjunction with the dispute concerned. Also be advised that repetitively making an unblock request when there is no substantial difference between the reasons given for each is a fast road to having your talk page access withdrawn. AGK 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|As a response to the requests of two administrators and an advice of BWilkins (over e-mail):

FOR BWilkins (From this afternoon; I moved it all here to be more clear) I think the best would be that I exactly repeat the accusatory sentence and negate it: I, Draganparis, am clearly and directly retracting the legal threat in the sense expressed in the sentence that I wrote, and as cited by the administrator as follows: 'I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately , with the implication clearly being that you (meaning I) intend to in the future (also your comments at ANI seem to suggest the same) (the leter imlaying my comments). Thereby the intention expressed in this cited sentence and mentioned other comments on mine at ANI are retracted. If this is not the right wording please propose one and I will repeat. Thank you very much indeed for your sincere help.Draganparis (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

FOR AGK: If every administrator involved would like a separate, specific explicit formulation of my intentions, this is OK. Certainly no problem, but this suggested formulation of "AGK" is slightly different from the previous which I already submitted. Yet, here is for AGK: I solemnly and explicitly state that I am not pursuing legal action in conjunction with the dispute concerned. (Note: this is not a "new request" but answer to the administrators AKG request from today.)Draganparis (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I have unblocked you because you have unambiguously declared that you intend no legal action against Wikimedia, Wikipedia, or its editors. This unblock does not condone any other actions you may have taken on Wikipedia recently, but since your block was only for the perceived legal threats I don't believe you need to be blocked further at this time. Request handled by: Atama頭 Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Oh, I read the entire situation. The entire wall-o-text. Your recent edits, and all the places you said to look: Your new unblock misses the key point: you will NEVER be unblocked until you fully retract what so many admins have now seen as a legal threat. At this point, intended or not, it is the only sticking point. You will do well to remove your current request and simply RETRACT it. After that, do whatever you need to within the rules and policies of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HERE IT IS: Thanks to you both, it was kind to explain. I declared number of times already that the legal treat was not intended. If you think it was intended, by my rejecting this interpretation I retracted that eventual meaning and I am retracting again now this what you think that was intended. My last edits ALL mean this. I do not know what else you mean by “until you fully retract what so many admins have now seen as a legal threat”. Please explain.

And, I am sorry, apparently there is NOTHIG what I can edit, erase, or remove, I am afraid. Block is complete. My user page and my talk page can not be edited. I would like, please, to remove from my user page, form the edit mode, my full list of publication and the rest. Thank you.

And the last. I am curious how you explain the fact that all administrators accept that I can be called: a liar. I never said something what was not true or I stated what was not true but without knowing this, so this could not be a lie. One editor stated number of times that I was lying not to admit of two (2) sockpuupetry condemnations, and I always said that I had one, what was true. I never said that he was lying. How do you see this, please?Draganparis (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing (and continue to argue) that your interpretation of what you said is that it was not a legal threat, and therefore you are not clearly and directly retracting it. As the intent of the statement was to stop a certain line of discussion, it violated the WP:NLT policy - please stop trying to argue it.

With regards to your discussion on defamation, it was more along the lines of WP:NPLT - I do hope that we can get that portion ironed out once your block is lifted.

I reiterate: because your one comment DID VIOLATE WP:NLT (even though you try to explain your way out of it), it MUST be 100% wholly retracted, and not argued away. Once unblocked, you should return to where you made it, and I recommend using <s> </s> around it to finalize the removal.

You will not be unblocked until the retraction is done. I will then be happy to assist with the rest. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As BWilkins said, he did read it - his words were that your wall of text were bordering on WP:TLDNR. Rather than putting up another wall of text, as a starting point you may consider responding to his message directly above mine. As for your "profile" - if you mean your User:Draganparis, then it can be emptied of content (apart from the sockpuppet accusation notice). If you mean this page, then it is possible to remove some of the messages, but I would suggest that it remains as it is until the issue of your block is finally resolved. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draganparis, you're not letting it go. These little sideways comments towards User:GK1973 are just subtle flaming. We'll just implement sanctions and more blockings to people if you guys continue battling around Wikipedia. Find some different areas to edit. SGGH ^ping! 13:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is SGGH supporting such incivility? A normal calm scientific discussion turns out to explicit insult (GK1973 write that I am lying) and an administrator warns ME for inflaming. Is normal argumentation "inflaming" because it proves something what is not wanted? The SGGH asks me to let go, when I just declared that that particular discussion IS FINISHED FOR ME.Draganparis (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Draganparis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Usertalk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SGGH ^ping! 23:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanos (talk • contribs) [reply]