User talk:AlexGerrard77

Welcome!

Hello, AlexGerrard77, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Alexandru Chircă, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 12:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alexandru Chircă

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Alexandru Chircă requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. - Mr X 12:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Lucian Filip

Your addition to Lucian Filip has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Benzar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left winger. 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) 09:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Adrian Hurdubei

The article Adrian Hurdubei has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NFOOTBALL states that "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Hurdubei's previous clubs were not playing in a professional league (see also WP:FPL). As he has not played in one of Astra's league matches either until now, he does not yet meet the notability criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Romario Moise

The article Romario Moise has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NFOOTBALL states that "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." As Moise has not played in one of Astra's league matches until now (see also his Soccerway profile, he does not yet meet the notability criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrei Răuță

The article Andrei Răuță has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NFOOTBALL states that "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Răuță has not played in one of Astra's league matches until now (see also the Astra appearances chart on the official Liga I website. The stats in the infobox also seem to be wrong, see also his Soccerway profile. As the other club listed in that profile is from a league that is not fully pro, he does not meet the notability criteria. Once he has appeared in an Astra Liga I league match, the article may be recreated.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Adrian Hurdubei

The article Adrian Hurdubei has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrei Răuță

The article Andrei Răuță has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mihnea Nicorescu

The article Mihnea Nicorescu has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Drissa Diarrassouba

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Wikipedia:Drissa Diarrassouba a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Daniel Benzar

The article Daniel Benzar has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrei Gavrilă

The article Andrei Gavrilă has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ionuț Poiană

The article Ionuț Poiană has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Drissa Diarrassouba

The article Drissa Diarrassouba has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Sir Sputnik. I noticed that you removed a Biographies of Living Persons PROD, from Daniel Benzar among other pages, and I wanted to let you know that I have replaced it. Please don't remove these Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles, as you did with Daniel Benzar, unless reliable sources have been provided. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the respective talk page instead. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue removing Biographies of Living Persons PRODs without addressing the issue, as you did with Ionuț Poiană‎, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove Biographies of Living Persons PRODs without addressing the issue, as you did at Drissa Diarrassouba. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment on my user page

For starters, please post comments to my talk page rather than my user page, after all, that is what it's there for. In response to your comment, there are already any number of explanations posted above, so there is little I can do but reiterate what is already posted here. Biographies of living people must cite at least one reliable source that mentions the subject. Articles that do not respect this guideline may be deleted, and disrupting this process without addressing the underlying problem is likely to get you blocked from editing. Additionally, in order to have an article on Wikipedia a subject must meet certain inclusion criteria called notability. For footballers there are two relevant notability guidelines. The first is the general notability guideline, which says that any subject which has received significant coverage in reliable sources is notable. In the context of football, significant coverage does not include routine sports journalism such as match reports, transfer announcements, squad lists, player profiles etc. The second is the football-specific notability guideline, which says that any footballer who has played for his country's national team or in one of the fully professional leagues listed here is notable. Played in this context means having appeared in a match; simply being signed to an FPL-club is insufficient. Unfortunately, none of your creations meet either of these guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin with a bit of talk page etiquette. Please post new comments to the bottom of the talk page. This conveniently keeps comments in chronological order. Using the "new section" link at the top of most talk pages will do this for you automatically. Secondly, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. This makes it easier to tell who said what and when. As for sanctions, since you have stopped the disruptive behaviour a block is no longer necessary. However, since you have received previous warnings and have been blocked before, I should stress that when a user asks you to stop doing something, especially if the warning includes consequences, you need to stop immediately. On to the articles. While I appreciate your addition of sources, these footballers do not currently meet the inclusion criteria for article on footballers for reasons I've already explained. I will be adjusting the deletion process accordingly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrei Răuță for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrei Răuță is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Răuță until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Andrei Răuță. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marius Alexe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Alexe

What you know is entirely irrelevant, unless you can support it with reliable source. Verifiability, not trutch, is the standard for inclusion of new material. You also still do not seem to understand the concept of a warning. I'm not posting these things to your talk page simply to annoy you, but to give you the opportunity to stop disruptive behaviour, rather than having to block you, because if you keep this up that is precisely what will happen. I should also point out that with two previous blocks on your record, and recent ones at that, the next one will be for more than just a few days. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week

You appear to be continuing disruptive editing and adding unsourced material to biographical articles. If you keep this up, we will block you from editing permanently. This is not OK by Wikipedia process. If you don't understand why it isn't then ask and someone can explain it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Nomination of Drissa Diarrassouba for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drissa Diarrassouba is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drissa Diarrassouba until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:List of Romanian expatriate footballers

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:List of Romanian expatriate footballers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article exists at List of Romanian expatriate footballers

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to List of Romanian expatriate footballers

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the list should probably be deleted in its entirety, you edits to this page do not respect the inclusion criteria for the list as it is intended to be a list of Romanians playing in foreign professional leagues. Other entries probably do meet the criteria, but you have not supported their inclusion with reliable sources. As such, I will be reverting much of your work. I'm telling you this in advance, since you've just gotten off a week-long block for adding unsourced material to articles. If you continue with these edits you will likely find yourself blocked form editing yet again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback to Sir Sputnik

Ok I will let just the professional leagues.

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that many of your entries are unsourced. Ideally, you should be included with every entry to the list, but this is unfortunately not the case for all entries in the list, and I'm not going to hold you to a standard the community isn't respecting either. However, if the player in question has an article, the interested reader can confirm for themself that the person exists and belongs on the list. In this particular case, there is nothing to go on except your say so, and that's not okay. When adding new players to the list, please make sure that it is easy to verify the fact that the player does in fact meet the inclusion criteria (i.e. they are Romanian and play for the club you say they do). Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you have facebook ?

I do, however I don't give out my real-world identity on Wikipedia. I given the sort of work I do here, I occasionally have put up with harassment. (Comments like these: 1, 2). It's nothing I can't handle, but I don't particularly want these people to know who I am. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand but I wanted somebody to help me with sundries on wikipedia you saw how many blocks I received.

You might start with the Welcoming committee. They've got a lot of information aimed at new editors. Beyond that I suggest reading up on the five pillars of Wikipedia, on verifiability rules, and on reliable sources. For guidelines on football specifically, have a look at the WikiProject Football. There's a lot of documentation out there. Most of it isn't that complicated, but you do need take the time to actually read and understand it. Though, if you're worried about being blocked, the best advice I can give you, is that if someone tells you something is disruptive, stop and ask questions, rather than carrying on. The blockworthy only mistake you've made is to continue doing something after you've been asked to stop. Do that and I'm sure you'll be able to sort the rest out in due course. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of multiple accounts

Given you use of the AlexGeorge33 (talk · contribs) account, I feel the need to speak you about the use of multiple accounts. The following section from Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is particularly relevant.

Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed.

While you have done nothing wrong per se, it looks very suspicious. I should also add that comments like this are not particularly believable, and being less than honest about secondary accounts does not speak in your favour. Finally, using multiple accounts abusively (i.e. for any of the disruptive behaviours I've already warned you about) will almost certainly get you blocked indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't have 2 accounts , AlexGeorge33 (talk · contribs) is one of my friends in really life and both of us call "Alex".

September 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

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).

AlexGerrard77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ok I admit I have 3 wikipedia accounts , these are:this , AlexandruGeorge77, AlexGerrard33 .Please unblock this account and delete rest . I will not do the things for what I was blocked and if I have problems I will contact an administrator.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I don't think this suffices to show that you understand why your past conduct was problematic, or what exactly you'll do differrently. Huon (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2015 (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.

Talkback to Huon

Please, I really understand , give me a chance , how do you want to demonstrate you ? I want to make good things.

It would help if you could describe the problems that caused your block and explain what you'll do differently if unblocked. Huon (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Huon

On this account ie first, at first I did not know to create pages for wikipedia , I didn't knew to put " references " or " exernal links " to show that my sources are real and for this , the content was deleted by other users or administrators , and I always redo them until I was blocked permanently. And to support my page I made an other account, and for that I was caught for sockpuppetry. After some time I noticed that both accounts weren't unblocked and I thought to make an other account and I was caught again. But now I really understand what to do. Thanks fo listening me.

And another thing : (if you intend to help me) the pages I've created on "AlexandruGerrard77" (the last) was deleted because the user which created the pages was blocked or something like that, I'd be grateful if you restore the pages.

Personally I'm not going to unblock you, but you're welcome to use the {{unblock}} template to request another review of your block. Going by your deleted contributions that you want restored I rather doubt you understand Wikipedia's guideline on notabiliy. Huon (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Huon 2

Oh c'mon man ! if you see something suspiciously at me block me again, if you don't do that , then who ?? Nobody has listening to me just you, you know my problems, please help me !

Sir Sputnik please help me

Watch what I spoken with Huon , I want you to help me cause he doesn't want. Please , conditions are the same!

First, let me apologise for the delayed response. For some reason, Wikipedia did not see fit to notify me of your comment, so I only just saw it now. Second, I am not an administrator so there is little I can do in this situation. That being said, I entirely agree with Huon's assessment of you. After each of your previous blocks, you reached out to a member of the community, usually myself, and seemed to understand what you had done wrong, only to fall back into disruptive behaviour a few weeks later. This pattern followed by outright lies concerning your alternate accounts has completely eroded my ability trust you. If you respect your block and do not engage in further evasion, I might consider supporting an unblock request under the standard offer in six months time, but lifting your block at the present time would be entirely inappropriate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AlexGerrard77. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Unirea Ion Roată

The article Unirea Ion Roată has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Football club that fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]