User talk:SGGH

Bonaparte before the Sphinx

The Saint Nicholas' Church, Ghent over time.

This user is an administrator (verify). This user also maintains a metawiki account here and a commons account here.

---

Archives (Index)

2009/May 2009/June 2009/July 2009/August 2009/September 2009/October 2009/November 2009/December 2010/January 2010/February 2010/March 2010/April 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September 2011/October 2011/November 2011/December 2012/January 2012/February 2012/March 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/July 2012/August 2012/September 2012/October 2012/November 2012/December 2013/January 2013/February 2013/March 2013/April 2013/May 2013/June 2013/July 2013/August 2013/September 2013/October 2013/November 2013/December 2014/January 2014/February 2014/March 2014/April 2014/May 2014/June 2014/July 2014/August 2014/September 2014/October 2014/November 2014/December

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome to my talk page, please leave any messages below. If you have queries or concerns regarding my wiki-work or admin-work, then please leave calm and polite messages and I will address the problem as soon as possible. I used to have a policy regarding where I responded (your talk or mine) but it got too confusing. You might want to keep half an eye on the moon in case my reply ends up there! Many thanks.


Please also note, I type very fast, and often in a hurry so I don't always have time to spellcheck, please forgive my spelling if I slip up!

Contents My WP:AN Well, wonderful pictures! But I have a problem. First of all we are all voluntaries and deserve to respect each other and to explain in a normal not angry but human way our decisions which affect others. Excuse me, but I think that tit is not a crime to suspect somebody to be acting in concord with somebody else. Would you please explain to 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) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC) You are so fast! Thanks. Yes, the spirits are probably calming down. The problem is that my call for decency they see as distraction. I pushed one argument in Logical fallacy which, hard as it was, frustrated one editor (Simanos), and he went then on with hard ad hominem attacks. I shouldn’t have done this in the way I did it. But people probably should be warned at least once not to call each other “layers”, “brain damaged” or similar, or not to denigrate each other intellectually or to avoid mockery. May be to be warned too not to start the discussion with a priory hate of the other. These are Wikipedia rules but they are easily forgotten. Thanks for the understanding. (Sorry for disturbing such a nice page of yours.)Draganparis (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC) The problem is you keep on lying (and no, that is not too strong a word for your distortions of the truth and facts). The spirits are calming down because your antics on the talk pages of articles are being ignored and people are fed up with your proven trolling and talking to admins about you instead of trying to talk directly to you any more, which proved fruitless. The problem is that your call for decency is seen as an insult, since you are the one who did most of the indecent disruptions, we want decency too. Your behaviour is hypocritical because at the same time as trying to make us look responsible for incivility, you have the nerve to call us sock-puppets again in the very next sentence or paragraph. I'm very surprised Admins have allowed you to do this for so long. Especially since you managed to put your foot in your mouth and threaten even admins like Future who is pretty much almost anti-Greek one would say (no offence meant). The talk pages were doing fine I might add, until you showed up with your spam and trolling, they were pretty quiet before. I suggest you take your own advice and probably apologize to a few people before you are blocked like your other socks. Simanos (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Talkback Hello, SGGH. You have new messages at Elvey's talk page. Message added 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Also, ER asked for your help on his talk page. Elvey (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, is this a correct place to respond to you SGGH? You asked me on my talk page "Have you filed a WP:RFC on the matter? I can provide you with some links if you wish." No, thanks, I looked at these pages. It is too complicated for me. And I am considering to give up Wikipedia if this case is not resolved in an civilized and decent way. I see that the slur continues, unrestrained, on my talk page (Simanos and GK1973), you may have a look at this. And even on this very page. This is probably no place for me, I am afraid. Thanks again.Draganparis (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Insults continue. Please visit my talk page. Here is what GK writes there: 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) 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) 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. Dear Sir, I would greatly appreciate if you would answer my e-mail sent directly to you. I know that this is tiresome but please have understanding for my serious concerns. It seams that Mr “GK 1973” and “Simanos” pretend not to be aware that I disclosed my personality almost 2 months ago and that this has been verified by Wikipedia administrator. This protects me against defamation. Both users have been explicitly defaming me permanently since. Of course I had some harsh words for them, although not containing direct insults. This as well as their anonymity makes the difference. I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately but I think that they should be aware of the matters of facts. The European jurisdiction is quite explicit, I am afraid; even the US jurisdiction has recently been quite clearly pronounced. I expect Wikipedia to respect its own rules regarding defamation and ban the two editors indefinitely. Thank you very much indeed. Draganparis (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Courtesy note You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)