User talk:Ephestion

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

[[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 13:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV edits are important

Hi Ephestion,

Thanks for your contributions, but after a period of dormancy you suddenly appear to making a number of edits which are far from neutral in tone. These will usually get reverted. Can I encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia's policy on editing from a Neutral Point of View. NPOV is an important concept in a collaborative project like Wikipedia where many contributors have differing opinions. -- Solipsist 19:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insults

You'll find that insults don't work so well on Wikipedia. I didn't revert your edits on Alexander because I'm gay and like to excite my gayness. I did it because your edits are NPOV, and really rather ignorant. There are, you should note, no real "moderators" on Wikipedia. I can revert you, but you can revert me. At some point, hard-fought topics can go into mediation. A record of name-calling will not help you there. So, try to stick to the point, for the sake of your argument's credibility if nothing else. Lectiodifficilior 22:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Koine in the Roman Empire

Do you have a source that states or shows that ancient Greek was far more common in the Italian, North African, Gaulic and Hispanic provinces than Latin? -- llywrch 18:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seeking some sensible consensus about the Roman Empire

Hi Ephestion,

I hope you read my comments on the talk page of the Roman Empire. I have carefully read your latest revision, and I don't want to get into an edit war.

Apart from a disagreement about the lingua franca, I can't see anything wrong with the drift of the info that makes up the difference between your revision and mine. It's just in the wrong place. This is supposed to be the introduction to an article about the period of classical civilization between 31 BC and - say 500 AD. It's just not relevant to introduce material about the Crusades etc.

I agree with you on the following points:

A. During the first four centuries, I'm willing to bet that most non-historians underestimate the contuining importance of Greek in the Empire. They may be aware that in terms of high culture Romans derived most of their inspiration from Greek models, but they are probably not aware that Latinity barely touched the eastern Koine-speaking half at all.

B. Giving a date as 476 (the last emperor in the West) is wrong and 1453 is indeed the true date for the end of the Roman state. And, we have to make the continuity between the "Roman" and "Byzantine" empires very clear.

But we have to periodize, and to a certain extent we're stuck with the traditional periodization.

Having said that, I hope you will respond to a sensible reworking of the introduction without automatically reverting it. Djnjwd 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Signing

You sign by typing 4 tildes like this ~ ~ ~ ~ (but without the spaces)

Djnjwd 20:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Hi Ephestion, you've been reported for violating the three-revert rule (3RR) at Roman Empire. If you violate this again, you're likely to be blocked from editing without further warning. Please try to reach a consensus on the talk page for your edits. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Φίλε...

i think you should use a word processor when making edits. just wanted to let you know. Project2501a 01:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll (Macedonian Slav or Macedonian)

I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people that _possibly_ share or represent a different point of view. Your contributions to the discussion and the poll are welcomed.

27 March 2006

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Age of Empires III. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kosmas Damianides

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kosmas Damianides, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Constantine ✍ 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

Please do not edit-war over the terminology used to refer to Macedonia, as you did at Republic of Macedonia. Wikipedia editors have developed a binding consensus guideline on how to refer to the country, outlined at WP:NCMAC. This is based on the policy of using the most common name generally used in English to refer a country, and/or the name that a country chooses to use for itself, no matter if these names are politically acceptable to third parties (see the naming-conflict guideline). The Arbitration Committee has decided that all edits affecting the Macedonia naming issue are subject to a one-revert restriction: no editor is allowed to undo another editor's action more than once within 24 hours. In cases covered by the binding guideline, editors restoring the consensus version are not subject to this restriction.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or in other words, you will find yourself being blocked if you do that again. Please desist. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was decided in MOSMAC2, stop using FYROM or a number of editors will support you being blocked. (Taivo (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked 31 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 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.

31 hours for edit-warring on Republic of Macedonia. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingua Franca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stavros Damianidis

The article Stavros Damianidis has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. WWGB (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Kastellorisian

Hello, Ephestion,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kastellorisian should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kastellorisian .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png

Thank you for uploading File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have broken the three-revert rule. I am giving you a chance to self-revert, before I report you to have you blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warning. But I am currently editing the article and it is being attacked by other users without giving me a chance to modify the page ```` Also the edits I have made have saved Wiki from any legal issues since the proposed changes would violate Greek laws. No island of the Dodecanese is allowed to fly a flag other than the Greek flag. That change was necessary for legal purposes and retain the right to continue to revert so long as users attack the page with nonsensical images of some masonic logo posing as the island's flag.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Kastellorizo. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Collateral damage by aggressive user. I am reverting use of illegal images and fabricated facts. No flag flies in Greece other than the Greek flag. Old flags used in other wiki articles are redundant Military flags not in use. Only cities with historical prominence have a historical seal. No place in Greece has a decorative seal for local government departments. The sources given in the article are entirely biased from an author from the island with no historical evidence. I edited the use of a non government site posing as an official site www.megisti.gr. Megisti is NOT a significant entity and does not have a flag or seal as it is part of the state of the Dodecanese, which has it's own military banner/flag and seal. I am editing in small chunks over time and have been attacked for trying to make the article more credible. Ephestion (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At least 3 other editors appear to have disagreed with your edits, so at the very least the edits you repeatedly made appear to lack consensus. However, most importantly, you violated the three-revert rule, for which this block was made. --slakr^\ talk / 23:12, 20 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

As mentioned previously it was collateral damage, the reporting user also violated the three revert rule. Also there was no justification for any of the reverts the other three users made. As you will notice on the article's talk page I have been methodical in trying to achieve a better quality article. The other users are flyby's who have no interest in the article and have merely enjoyed doing whatever they like doing, which is not writing articles! Ephestion (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted, you have again broken WP:3RR. You were even given a chance to self-revert. Since you are still confused and appear to have not read the policy page, unblocking you would be a poor idea. Kuru (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (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.

Further warning

I have in the meantime realized that virtually all your article contributions, for the last seven years, have consisted of a slow but steady trickle of absurdly tendentious and unsourced opinion screeds, most recently seen in the very serious WP:BLP violation you tried to create at Kastellorisian, but also in edits such as this confused screed, this, this and this opinion piece, or this bit of absurd personal speculation. This goes all the way back to edits back in 2005 and 2007, like the (now deleted) addition [1][2] to All Empires, the vandal-hoax Moon Landing: Ephestion, or this piece of vandalism. You have basically made no constructive encyclopedic article contributions, ever.

So, let me make this entirely clear: I really don't know why you weren't permanently blocked a long time ago, but I guarantee that if I see you making any further edit trying to pass off your own opinion as encyclopedic facts, on any article whatsoever, I will see to it that you are blocked swiftly and permanently. This is your very last warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that edits made when I was 12 are still on the list of things I have done? Well if you harass me further by threatening me again I will ensure you are the one with a swift ban.

Ah, you were twelve back then? That explains a few things. However, your more recent editing is still not on a par with that of an adult. When I looked over your contributions it didn't really look to me like they were maturing much over the years; it's all a single story of disruptive editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 21 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The article references at Kastellorizo are almost entirely fabricated and fake. None of the references relate to the article. I was making multiple minor edits to help make the article truer to fact. For instance William Smith's dictionary as stated in Ref 9 of the article Kastellorizo is fake as ratified by http://perseus.uchicago.edu/Reference/antiquities.html The article claimed Dorians settled there first. No Greek record exists to name the island let alone for anyone to write a pre-history of it. It was one of several non inhabited islands in that exact region. Which is why there is no source or reference or any archaeology to propose Dorians settled the island. Since I edited this comment out the abusive user who led to the edit ban began an edit war to provoke a triple revert by myself. Furthermore I asked for the Masonic symbols to be removed from the webpage because they are not legitimate symbols for the island. This included a fabrication that the island has it's own flag and another indicating that there is a seal that looks like the one in the article. Not only is there no proof of such usage, the creators of this article took it upon themselves to setup a bogus website www.megiste.gr to validate their implied fabrications. All government websites in Greece have the extension .gov.gr as the rest of the world. There is no official Municipality website that does not have the .gov.gr URL. Which is why I removed these from the article. As a consequence the user who reported me and several others have attacked me personally by emails and on the WIKI. They have also reverted the article and kept all nonsensical references none of which contribute the slightest to the content of the Article. Also I tried to separate Religion from some black magic rituals described in the Article because of teh political nature of clumping Easter celebrations with black magic rituals. Again the user who initiated the block reverted this edit of mine. I suggest an unblock be conducted so that I can initiate the process of posting a report against the user implied here as I do not or can not do that at the moment. Also according to information on my screen the Block has expired but is still in effect. Ephestion (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is WP:3RR. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 19:11, 22 January 2014 (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.

Your block will expire in about four more hours. However, if you resume edit warring after expiration of your block, you will be reblocked - and for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png

About the copyright of File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png, please note that you can't "grant fair use" of an image. What you can grant, provided you are the true owner of the picture, is a free license, such as {{cc-by-sa}}. That's what you will have to do if you want this image kept, because it probably doesn't fulfill our conditions for fair use. However, is the image really yours? It very much looks like a TV or video screenshot. According to what you said the other day, you must have been a small child when this image was taken – were you really at Hyde Park in person with your camera back then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stalking me? I have nothing further to talk to you about. Your actions in the last few days were aggressive and over reactive. I do not want you to contact or talk to me again. Not even when you have something good to say. Unless you apologize and if not, then keep walking.

I'd like an answer to FP's question. I'd also like you to provide some evidence that the image is actually Damianides. In what year of the festival did he perform? I don't see any evidence that he ever did.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do I care what you believe? Or what you would like? I think your IP should be compared with Future Perfect at Sunrise can you do that without bias and prove that you are in-fact not the same person?

STOP this. They are not the same person. I'd like the answer also. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You care "what you believe" because every time you click 'save page' or upload an image you agree to abide by Wikipedia's policies. So far it's obvious there's a distinct lack of policy-abiding here; if you want to contibute to Wikipedia, you will drop the stick, stop making accusations of stalking and sockpuppetry, and instead answer the simple, reasonable questions that have been asked about your uploads. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all school friends then eh? I don't need to reply to anything. you forget the wiki abides by us and general common sense laws around the world. I am not obliged to answer the question of how old i am not even under Wiki rules. So unless all three of you want to be reported I suggest you stop hounding, stalking and intentionally trying to create friction. All three of you have violated the Wiki rules and all three of you are liable in this instance to be reported. Asking someones age is not only against wiki rules but it can be illegal in general.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The enumerations of disruptive edits (from personal observation to rants to vandalism) listed above by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in "Further warning" is probably reason enough for an indefinite block, but now you're doing down the list of admins posting your screed about juvenile admins, and that's just going too far. You could conceivably regain your editing privileges (editing here is not some constitutionally granted right), but it would have to come with retractions and promises. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a grave error because the listings provided by Future Sunrise are a small fraction of my productive contributions. The article that was deleted as explained to the admins I wished to contact was one that had been around for 15 years prior to the recent personal attacks. The deletion of the article as explained to the admins I wished to talk to was juvenile. As stated:

"Hi. I have recently come under some personal attacks by admins of Wikipedia sparked by my edits on the Kastellorizo article. As a consequence you will notice partners or the same person with alternative names, or a gang, have launched personal attacks on every article i have edited. I would like you to initiate a prtoection for the page of Stavros Damianides. He was a well known Bouzouki player in Australia and in his younger days played with the best artists in Greece. He comes from a pre-internet age and few digital sources are around. He shares a similar story to Robert Johnson in the USA where he was never professionally recorded. The other matter is that despite evidence being given of well respected sources, these particular admins have repeatedly attacked and vandalized his entry. This photo will most likely also be deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png as was this one: http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2011/130/69704596_130517932940.jpg as was this one: http://simg.rcdn.in/images/pages/348987/stavros-damianides.jpg

the Admins who deleted this page have been monitoring my editing and have in the process destroyed one of the most significant pages of history for Perth Australia. The man not only played on his chin as shown in the picture, he was one of the best bouzouki player around. The article was sourced and confirmed because it was essentially part of Wikipedia for 10-15 years. I wish this page to be restored but also protected against similar juvenile admins. Ephestion (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

The article has been attack, vandalised and deleted recently. It has had it's sources proven and ratified and numerous images exist of the musician. As far as I am aware talking to selected Admins is not disruptive and I especially chose to talk to those particular admins due to their good repute and long standing service.

Well, this guy apparently was not as well-written up as Robert Johnson, who was in fact recorded. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the problem was that Rob Johnson's recordings, which I have, were single mic solo performances that some say he was paid less than what a packet of tobacco used to cost. Stavros was a Local legend I don't think Perth has been the same without him. During the James street festival he would be playing outside one of the local Greek Souvlaki stores. Hyde Park festival, just to name a few. But popularity Drmies is not a criteria for Wikipedia. What is a criteria is a well known or established fact, that indeed was and still is the basis for both article and picture. He was a celebrity, well known to the Greek and Italian communities, he was reasonably well known by the broader Aussie and Perth community. How else would he be constantly be playing at local festivals including the Perth Wine Festival, James Street Festival and Hyde Park Festival? The media must of known him to pull gigs like that. Ephestion (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in the case of File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png you will need stronger information about how you made it. Did you photograph a TV screen? Did you record this on videotape yourself? And on Wikipedia if you made the image we would have wanted you to release it under a free license, which you later attempted.

Talking about the extra interest that admins have in you, by posting at administrator's notice boards you have attracted their interest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the photograph came from a video that was made by one of the band members but since then he has given it to many people including myself. There is no copyright on the actual video that the picture was taken from. In addition to this only 1/3 of the actual video image is shown. The Walkabout magazine was a respected magazine and the writers in it are well respected in WA. There was a biographic in there about him. Plus I believe that the original article was launched by one of his family members so it may have had some biographic info shared directly from them. I do not know, I am just speculating. But overall the article was legitimate and was simply deleted as a personal attack on myself for having some interest and posting on it. But my persistence on the matter is because I feel guilty that a decent wikipedia article has just disappeared vendetta style by some lame juvenile power bending/abusing admins. The reason Future Sunshine deleted the article has nothing to do with the article but he has had some kind of vendetta as expressed clearly for attempting to edit the Kastellorizo article. To understand the degree of juvenile behaviour consider that the islands name is not Kastellorizo but Megisti that http://www.perth.wa.gov.au/council/national-and-international-relations/sister-cities clearly states it to be Megisti. But some small click of admins possibly from the island or immigrants from the island have a vendetta for trying to flush out the article and all it's known fabrications. The comments made against me and the attacks against started from one abusive admin. Which is why I wanted to contact you and some other more respected admins to consider the issue. Ephestion (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

As described above. I believe my intent was mistaken. I was trying to get the interest of respected and experienced admins to consider the issue that has spiraled out of control because of the persistent personal attacks by one juvenile admin and his friends. There was no disruption of the Wikipedia by my posts, they were simply asking for the protection of an article that is clearly under attack for reasons beyond the articles content. The Deletion process was also hampered as teh majority votes were by admins who were also embroiled in the Kastelorisian debate. In anycase the permanent ban is entirely in appropriate. All my edits in the past have been with good intent. My editing of the Roman Empire page for instance created the current theme of the page ie split into west and east. Many of my contributions have had a lasting effect, but in severe edits many people are opinionated. Especially in religious matters and edits which seemed to be listed above by Future Sunrise, but all my edits were founded on scholarly information and well reputed historians. The only page that I was not aware of as being politically sensitive was the moon landing; hmm how can I say this, it was not my understanding that it was considered by default as factual in the English speaking world. Ephestion (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You continue to have no insight into the bases of your block. Your focus on one "juvenile admin and his friends" is misguided, which means that the likelihood of continued disruption if you are unblocked is substantial. As an aside, the copyright in the video image was not, as you claimed, owned by you. It was owned by the band member you claim created the video. Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2014 (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.

Please read WP:NOTTHEM before making further unblock requests. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 28 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

As stated above. WP:NOTTHEM is not applicable, the development of the block is described in detail with all parties involved, this is necessary for the establishment of truth. WP:NOTTHEM applies only in naming individuals and blaming everything on them like a blame game. I have merely explained in chronological order what has happened. I have not broken any rules deserving a full block. I request as detailed in the Wikipedia rules for unblocking that an other admin lift the block. I am asking for Graeme Bartlett since he appears to be a sensible mature admin. Under Wiki rules the appeal to be unblocked can also come with a request from particular admins to ensure credibility and avoid sockpuppets. Since each application for unblocking requires an independent reason, the basic point is I have not done anything to deserve the block. Contacting admins about an issue on the Wiki is not disruptive nor am I vandalizing. This is obvious to anyone with a rational mind. Ephestion (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your recent editing is full of personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, absurd paranoid nonsense, attempts to push your point of view, gross misrepresentation of facts, and so on and so on ... It is perfectly clear that your presence is a negative for the project in many ways. The only thing about this indefinite block which can reasonably be questioned is the puzzling fact that it took such a long time to come. You have been given more than enough chances, and there is no case for yet another one. In view of the time that is wasted by your continual unblock requests that all totally fail to address the reasons for your block, your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2014 (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.

Pinging Graeme_Bartlett properly so that he's aware of this request. However, this is certainly no rule that says only the particular admin of the blocked editor's choice will be allowed to handle this. Any qualified admin may handle this request. Zad68 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that there are unfounded accusations, but I do think that some people here are being too sensitive. With talk page access revoked Ephestion can no longer communicate effectively to indicate that they understand the block reason. However if we go back to the image in question, the videographer, who was a band member is the one who holds the copyright on the image. So that means that we need that band member to give a written permission that rights are being released as per the license that was put on the image. We probably need to credit this band member unless they want to do a CC-0 license. Ephestion the way to get ahead on Wikipedia is to address the issues, rather than the people. So even if you feel that they have a conspiracy against you, stick to the problem about what happened to the article, rather than who did it. You may still be able to communicate via email, and I will read a message that you send to me. You can ask me to post your message on your talk page, and I will do so if looks appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Graeme Bartlett, I think that he is seriously underestimating the problems. He writes as though the block were for just one incident, where perhaps Ephestion may have not fully understood the situation. However, as I see it, the block is for a continual history of disruptive editing continuing over a period of years, perhaps the most prevalent being persistent attempts to impose a nationalist point of view on articles, but there are many other problems, and it seems to me to be a serious misreading of the situation to focus only on one incident. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are mostly about the talk page access stop. Also the idea is to turn Ephestion into a useful asset for Wikipedia, if this is possible! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]