User talk:Spiros4m

The article 4M Software has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of 4M Software

A tag has been placed on 4M Software 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 company or corporation, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rtphokie (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guideline

Hello, Spiros4m. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for undeletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is FINE MEP. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spiros4m. 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 believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2018 (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).

Spiros4m (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here : I am sorry, I did not mean to violate the rules of Wikipedia, not at all. My intention was to be constructive. Anyway, now I know for sure so I am kindly asking you to unblock my account. My apologies once again and Many Thanks for understanding.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2018 (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).

Spiros4m (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is my reason to be unblocked: Fist of all, after considering carefully the facts and reading the "Guide to appealing blocks", I did realize the reason I was blocked (same IP for 2 accounts). In fact I created a second account (ksp.papath) in my PC just to assist my father who was not familiar with Wikipedia (and thereafter he continued to edit his article in his PC corresponding to another IP, something that you can easily check/confirm, I guess). Honestly I did not know that this could create problems. Anyway, this block is no longer necessary because I have understood very well why I was blocked, apparently I will not do it again and certainly I will make productive contributions instead. And finally, the reason I am requesting this unblock is just to have the chance to contribute in the future, given that I have nothing specific to contribute for the time being. Many Thanks for understanding

Decline reason:

I'm declining because this is a CheckUser block, which means normal administrators cannot lift it, and per WP:FAMILY. Since your appeal seems based in large part on private information, your best avenue of future appeal would be by emailing the arbitration committee, either through using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee or by emailing them at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2018 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of IDEA Architectural

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 IDEA Architectural, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]