User talk:SpyridisioAnnis

Welcome To My Talk Page, Feel Free To Ask Me Questions!

SB

This user lets SuggestBot recommend articles to edit {{{frequency}}}.

File copyright problem with File:1.jpg.adapt.1920w.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:1.jpg.adapt.1920w.jpg. However, it is currently 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. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 11:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, SpyridisioAnnis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories.
Message added 06:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Qwerfjkl talk

Your submission at Articles for creation: Volleyball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification (July 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There is no significant coverage presented in the sources about Volleyball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification. Until that is available, it's unlikely this article will be able to appear on Wikipedia.

I hope you will consider improving existing Wikipedia content about other subjects of interest!

If you have any questions please ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Volleyball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpyridisioAnnis! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Missvain (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, I'm Tbhotch. An edit that you recently made to Template:Did you know nominations/Dominican Republic seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zone Of Oceania (September 5)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: original research, bizarre capitalisation, unsourced, not notable.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Is Wrong With It SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Do not remove posts of another user on that page without a valid reason. It's fine if you disagree and want to create a redirect, but there is no circumstances which you should be removing my post. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. For this edit. No reason to be switching the request to declined after it was accepted. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Stop capitalising every word. In talk page posts it is very annoying, and in articles it is very disruptive. You are creating more work for your fellow volunteer editors, and you have been asked before to respect normal capitalisation rules. bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure at AfC

You closed a request -- mine, indeed! -- at AfC with the comment "The Layout Of The Redirect Seems Invalid. Please Repeat The Order In The Original Source." Could you clarify what you meant by that? Thanks. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Did Not Use The Original Layout. That's Why I Rejected The Request. SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, and it definitely doesn't look like a valid reason to decline the request. What "original layout" are you talking about, and which "original source"? Please do not restore your close again. --bonadea contributions talk 08:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The order of words? I did. I too am mystified by what you can possibly mean by "the original layout". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Mean There Should Be Another Question That Asks For A Source If It's Applicable SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Zimbabwe Football Association, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk.

Your edit also introduced language errors. bonadea contributions talk 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Switched It From Zimbabwean English To Which Type Of English? SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad page moves

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to For What It's Worth, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did two reckless article page moves. If you do this again, you will be blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Data=UkiPKsGWlqLpPCy9ZoKXxNPveAyEEPWOHfwJX8bIRn9gTQkzgTeA3LaOhtZe8H6InQozgEiMhqNX2xrP-8B4pp3hbBo35dLh7Ss312r1HucpBXNIUOQ29lBnorJkyHM.png

Thank you for uploading File:Data=UkiPKsGWlqLpPCy9ZoKXxNPveAyEEPWOHfwJX8bIRn9gTQkzgTeA3LaOhtZe8H6InQozgEiMhqNX2xrP-8B4pp3hbBo35dLh7Ss312r1HucpBXNIUOQ29lBnorJkyHM.png. However, it is currently 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. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 10:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Leicester City F.C.

Hello! Your submission of Leicester City F.C. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, SpyridisioAnnis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories.
Message added 16:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Qwerfjkl talk

Your GA nomination of Ethiopia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ethiopia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ethiopia

The article Ethiopia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ethiopia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did It Take A Little Time To Fail It? I Just Went On To Improve The Article! SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly because there are a lot of uncited paragraphs which means that the article can't pass unless those are addressed. If you can find a way to cite what needs to be cited you can renominate the nomination. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the article might even quickfail after citing the missing material, I didn't find it particularly well written, but it would be a start. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lack of competence from SpyridisioAnnis. Thank you.— Qwerfjkl talk 01:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might fix that SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ancestry (disambiguation)

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 Ancestry (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines 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. Geramany (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of European World Cup champions' curse

The article European World Cup champions' curse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable "curse", only refered to as the "European World Cup champions' curse" in a Reddit post.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Fram (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredibly notable among football fans. SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of European World Cup champions' curse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European World Cup champions' curse 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/European World Cup champions' curse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO! I should take action and rescue it! SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I noticed that in this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European World Cup champions' curse, you removed all the content from the page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page then SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me orders. Anyways, I'm not even an administrator, so I can't delete it even if I wanted to. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with European World Cup champions' curse. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. ‑ Iridescent 07:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but do not delete this page! SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After your block expires, you'll need to make a case for why, per Wikipedia policy, the article should remain by adding a comment at WP:Articles for deletion/European World Cup champions' curse. —C.Fred (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gravedancing

Any more shit like this from you, and you can argue your case from an {{unblock}} template. Harassment of a blocked editor is just as much harassment as harassment of anyone else. ‑ Iridescent 07:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank the user that blocked User:Abidmardan because they do the worst type of vandalism SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't engaged in any kind of vandalism; they were making common mistakes a lot of new users make. If they were engaged in the worst type of vandalism, you harassing them would if anything be worse since in that case you'd be actively providing them with a pretext to vandalise further. ‑ Iridescent 07:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's false! SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the admin both who blocked them and who deleted their inappropriate pages, I believe I'm qualified to comment on the matter. Incidentally, this is active vandalism. ‑ Iridescent 07:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything else to fix this concern. SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ‑ Iridescent 07:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the above: I've intentionally only blocked for a relatively short time, to allow you to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European World Cup champions' curse should you want to do so. Given the laundry-list of warnings you've received in the past, I imagine the next admin won't be as lenient if your disruption continues. ‑ Iridescent 08:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

200 edits!

Wow, this is an incredible milestone! I have just reached 200 edits! I hope you take some time for WP:WikiLove in my talk page because i'd appreciate it. After all, I fixed my time at Wikipedia today, and I hope I can get even better tommorow! (Notice:Don't send any "Wikipedia" drinks during the time! After all, the foods in the templates are not given in real life, right?) SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
7	Office of Population Affairs (talk)	Add sources
11	Surami Pass (talk)	Add sources
176	Purebred (talk)	Add sources
45,769	United States House of Representatives (talk)	Add sources
31	Bhakti Charu Swami (talk)	Add sources
5	Cypriot Cup for lower divisions (talk)	Add sources
97	Sasy (talk)	Cleanup
46	SUBST (talk)	Cleanup
113	Dalkon Shield (talk)	Cleanup
2	Persepolis F.C. (women) (talk)	Expand
76	Offshore oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico (United States) (talk)	Expand
6	Boris Raspudić (talk)	Expand
151	Curse of Billy Penn (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
14	Iran football award winners (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
55	Sports Illustrated cover jinx (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,373	Galápagos Islands (talk)	Merge
627	Gravitational acceleration (talk)	Merge
203	G-factor (physics) (talk)	Merge
5	James Treble (talk)	Wikify
312	De Kuip (talk)	Wikify
238	Sports in Los Angeles (talk)	Wikify
4	Axial Biotech (talk)	Orphan
3	Iraqi Professional Players (talk)	Orphan
3	Oliver Jandrić (talk)	Orphan
5	International Association of Academies (talk)	Stub
9	Borba, Amazonas (talk)	Stub
5	La Gauloise de Basse-Terre (talk)	Stub
9	Yuliya Balykina (talk)	Stub
8	Chalkanoras Idaliou (talk)	Stub
303	Karen Philipp (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
24	Insular Chile (talk)	Add sources
4	Keravnos Strovolou FC (talk)	Add sources
6	Miriam Beerman (talk)	Add sources
6	Nina Stroganova (talk)	Add sources
73	Congolese Association Football Federation (talk)	Add sources
312	Lolo Ferrari (talk)	Add sources
737	Estrous cycle (talk)	Cleanup
44	Atlantic slave trade to Brazil (talk)	Cleanup
141	Teenage pregnancy in the United States (talk)	Cleanup
4	Zahra Saei (talk)	Expand
15	Luanda Railway (talk)	Expand
1,935	ʻOumuamua (talk)	Expand
538	San Diego Stadium (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
35	Language policies of Francoist Spain (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
364	Lungo (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
924	File Allocation Table (talk)	Merge
33	Clinical mental health counseling (talk)	Merge
418	Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk)	Merge
104	Football derbies in France (talk)	Wikify
35	Gugu Liberato (talk)	Wikify
21	Peraton Labs (talk)	Wikify
11	Exigen Services (talk)	Orphan
4	Kalunga Project (talk)	Orphan
5	North Raleigh United Methodist Church (talk)	Orphan
28	Saint Barthélemy national football team (talk)	Stub
13	Cabildo insular (talk)	Stub
16	Ngounié Province (talk)	Stub
4	Delphine Zanga Tsogo (talk)	Stub
67	Boluspor (talk)	Stub
10	Murtaz Daushvili (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absaroka (proposed state)

Would you be able to expand on the concerns you laid out in Talk:Absaroka (proposed state)/GA1? All the review states is "Well written?: No" and " Broad in coverage?: No". This, frankly, does not provide me with enough information on what needs to be improved in the article. To put it in perspective this is more appropriate for a Good Article review. I can see you're a new editor and I applaud you for helping out at Wikipedia:Good article nominations but please be aware that GA reviews are a lengthy process and it is generally considered good etiquette to give nominees a week to resolve issues. I will renominate the article for the time being since I personally don't understand exactly how it failed and I do have some concerns about the brevity of the review given. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Please let me know what specific issues the page has so I can resolve them.

Also, as a clarification, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is meant for Good Articles that may no longer meet GA criteria, not Good Article reviews that fail. Cheers, Etrius ( Us) 05:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not well written and it's not broad in coverage. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 05:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyridisioAnnis Can you elaborate on why it's "not well written and it's not broad in coverage"? I cannot improve the article without some level of feedback. I do not think my writing abilities are infallible but need specifics. Etrius ( Us) 05:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not written like a Good Article and it is not broad in media coverage SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 05:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyridisioAnnis That doesn't answer my question. "Not written like a good article" is a non-answer. "Is not broad in media coverage" is slightly more specific but I am unsure what aspect in its coverage fails. Do you have a WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY source that can be used for this article? Etrius ( Us) 05:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 05:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for specifics. What sentence is written poorly, what information is missing, etc. I cannot improve an article if the only feedback is "no". Etrius ( Us) 05:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyridisioAnnis I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations regarding concerns about your Good Article Reviews. Please respond or see the discussion if/when you are available. Etrius ( Us) 06:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article links

Your edit reversion does not make sense. An article was created for a book, the mention of such a book in other articles is an exceedingly obvious place for wikilinks to be placed. Going to an editors talkpage and accusing them of disruptive editing with a slightly threatening tone for adding a wikilink is not a positive course of action. CMD (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This cleanup tag is similarly perplexing. There appears to be little to no clutter in that article. If you can, please expand on the reasoning behind the tag so other editors can understand it. CMD (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot of clutter, at least in my opinion. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 10:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction, you may be blocked from editing.

You know that edit warring is not OK. There is nothing wrong or odd about the wikilink that I can see, and clearly at least two other editors feel the same. Your edit summaries are uninformative, and you haven't discussed this anywhere, or explained why "[this might go wrong in the article"], why "there should be no link", or what "That's not the way this links by" means. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot that is wrong with the wikilink SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 10:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have now broken 3RR in Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction. Please self-revert your most recent edit, your 4th revert to the page. You can explain why it is a "bad wikilink" on the article talk page, and if you have actually identified a problem that the rest of us can't see, you'll probably get a consensus to remove it. But you may not restore your own contested version unless there is a consensus first. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpyridisioAnnis, are you removing the link because the blue linked text in Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction says Aki-wayn-zih: A Person as Worthy as the Earth and the linked article has the title Aki-wayn-zih? --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I also started a discussion at the DRN SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 10:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not self-reverted your 3RR violating edit. --bonadea contributions talk 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not self-reverted it because I have started a discussion at DRN. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 11:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not acceptable. Posting to DRN does not make it acceptable to break 3RR. Furthermore, you have not discussed the issue anywhere and you still have not explained what the problem is with the wikilink. There's nothing for DRN to discuss at this point. You also didn't follow the instructions for a DRN filing – you never notified the other involved editors, and it is not true that you have discussed this at the article talk page. I understand that the problem here is to do with your command of English, and I believe you are editing in good faith, but you are edit warring and that has to stop. Please self-revert before you make any other edits. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have self-reverted some of my edits so I could. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 11:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SpyridisioAnnis reported by User:Bonadea (Result: ). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 11:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Sam Kuru (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply concerned with the overall competency of your responses here, and the page full of warnings that you've amassed in a short time. It would be helpful to explain you edits in detail in the future. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

It seems that this block was 100% due to a bad mistake you made during the time. You should never revert anything I revert, and you have already seen the reason why. And that reason is that it instantly makes edit warring. You now learned your lesson and that's enough for you to understand why I was edit warring. I hope that you unblock me after this. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 13:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Utter nonsense and it indicates perhaps your block should be extended indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Perhaps that was just a description. The reason that I should get unblocked is that it personally cuts my free type and generally limits my ability to prevent vandalism (Such as a type of vandalism that happened which demoted a GA I have reviewed today) I will make sure not to do edit wars in the future. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 13:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm glad to hear your commitment to avoid edit warring in the future, but given your lack of responsiveness to concerns raised above, I am declining the unblock so that you can review what other people have been telling you and let it sink in. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I know that I understand that I was the problem, and I also have to say it again: I won't edit war after that. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 07:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

You've been repeatedly told that there needs to be some indication that you understand why you've been blocked, otherwise we have no way of knowing whether or not you'll do it again. Blocking isn't a punishment, it's a mechanism to prevent disruption; you've already wasted a lot of time of a lot of people and we need to understand that you're not going to keep wasting people's time. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 24 November 2022 (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.

May I give you some advice? If you want a chance of getting your block lifted- do some thinking, realize what you did wrong- and in your unblock request show that you understand how you were the problem and what you will do to make sure you do not make the same mistake in the future. The emphasis shows what is currently missing- accountability for your actions. Just a thought friend. Would love to see you grown and become a good editor. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For any reviewing admin, the GA's in question were reverted because User:SpyridisioAnnis was performing Suboptimal GA reviews and nominations. This was a community decission, not 'vandalism'. Etrius ( Us) 14:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that, on the other side, is disruptive editing if it's not vandalism. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruptive editing to fix another editor's problematic edits. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do problematic edits with that GA review so it's disruptive. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus: Please clarify your statement above. Was there a community decision to overturn some of SpyridisioAnnis' GA reveiws and nominations? Please provide diffs. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits should have not been reverted, and now, editors might be doing personal attacks with these reverts. They are attacking the contributor, not the content. And now they are even happy that I was blocked. They are harassing my contributions and my talk page, so I will send a unblock request below. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred The discussion can be found here. This was in regards @SpyridisioAnnis's Good article reviews for Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1997/GA1 and Talk:Absaroka (proposed state)/GA1 which were deemed to be inadequate and reverted. SpyridisioAnnis had used a frankly absurd criteria to grade GAs. Also, SpyridisioAnnis nominated 2 articles: here and here, which were both deemed inadequate and failed.

A discussion between SpyridisioAnnis and I occurred right above us on the talk page ( here is a link in case it was missed). This raised WP:CIR issues that seems to be echoed throughout WP:ANI and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. I can provide difs for ANI if you'd like. Etrius ( Us) 04:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me revert those things! SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 04:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What things are you suggesting you would like to revert? —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those that others reverted from me in GAN, GAR, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1997, Talk:Absaroka (Proposed state), Talk:Toronto, Directory structure, Talk:Croatian War Of Independence, Governor General's Award for English-language non-..., GA/Music, and The Dakotas. That's a lot of reverts. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 04:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the discussion at WT:Good article nominations#Issue regarding a new reviewer? Multiple experienced editors have reviewed your Good Article reviews and determined that they do not follow the guidelines for reviews. If you were to revert those edits, especially in light of community discussion about them, then frankly, the best outcome you could hope for would be a topic ban from doing any good article review work. In all likelihood, what would happen is that you would be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyridisioAnnis Those nominations and reviews were reverted because there were deemed to be improper. Croatian War of Independence was also reverted because the same discussion found it's reassessment meritless. Reverting this level of community consensus is the definition of WP:EDITWAR and will get you indeffed. The point of these blocks is to inform you that your behavior has been improper up to this point and attempt to rehabilitate it into something productive. Etrius ( Us) 04:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpyridisioAnnis,

I hope you really realize what is happening here. You've been given a short block for edit-warring which you still seem not to acknowledge. The admins here are saying if you return to this behavior after this block is over, you will likely be blocked indefinitely. That means, for a long, long time you will be unable to edit the English Wikipedia at all. Take a moment to decide whether it is more important for you to believe you did nothing wrong or whether you'd prefer to be able to continue to edit on this project.

You also need to be able to respond to criticism other editors leave on your talk page in a productive way. No editor is perfect. I'm an admin and I still get messages from editors pointing out mistakes I have made so to continue to work here, you have to be able to asess whether or not other editors saying you are doing something incorrectly are being accurate, and therefore your behavior must change, or whether you are acting according to policy and you should defend your actions.

But if you return from this brief block and continue to do edits like removing valid AFD tags or edit-warring, you will soon not be able to edit here at all. It's not too late to prevent this from happening but you need to start listening to what other editors and admins are telling you. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But can a sysop get blocked from editing as well? SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens exceedingly rarely, because admins have learned to listen to feedback, so there's no need to block them for persistent violations. Further, they have to demonstrate familiarity with guidelines and policy to get admin privileges in the first place. The few who do get blocked tend to do something so egregious that an immediate block is the only option. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Today was bad. My article was converted to a redirect where it should have not been converted to a redirect because I wanted to have created at least 1 article in the main namespace. What article should I create next? SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I wanted to have created at least 1 article in the main namespace" is not a reason to keep an article. Process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European World Cup champions' curse was clear that it didn't warrant a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re edit warring

This edit is against the consensus at WT:GAN, and I see you've undone my reversion. You're heading for a longer and possibly indefinite block. I suggest you undo it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you not revert my edit because if you do, you are heading for an edit war, and I don't want to edit war. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 14:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note you are currently edit-warring. Knock it off. --Yamla (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have only reverted 1 edit and they didn't revert my edit. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 14:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand WP:EW, then. I very strongly suggest you read it before editing further, because you are very near to an indefinite block. --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As much criticism as you've gotten, here is some praise for doing it right

This edit at Ishant Sharma was done properly. The talk page laid out the rationale for the change, you reviewed the sources that supported the change, you noted the lack of objections at the talk page when you stated you were making the change, and you changed the page. Good job. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:IP vandalism

Wikipedia:IP vandalism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IP vandalism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:IP vandalism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making disruptive speedy deletion nominations.

Speedy deletion is exclusively for pages that meet one of the very narrow and specific criteria listed at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. If you can't find a criterion that applies, then the page isn't eligible for speedy deletion. Spurious rationales like "poor writing" are in some ways worse than pure vandalism, since they have such a high potential to drive away newer editors who aren't yet familiar with our practices, don't realize that the nomination is illegitimate, and think they're in trouble.

I think I speak for everyone else who's warned you or tried to help you when I say that you're running out of last chances. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but your constant inability or refusal to comply with Wikipedia's rules is wasting a lot of time of a lot of people; the next block is likely to be indefinite. ‑ Iridescent 07:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Y]ou're running out of last chances. I have to agree with that. Please be mindful of how you interact. Comments like this one at a MfD discussion will, frankly, be used against you if (or, as I fear might be the case, when) an editor complains about your behaviour at WP:ANI. In all candor, I think your heart is in the right place, but you've dived in a little too quickly without getting up to speed on rules and guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

Please stop nominating articles to GAN. The articles you have nominated have all been clearly deficient, and you are not remotely a significant contributor to any of them. This is a continuing waste of community time, and it is already surprising you were not reblocked upon immediately resuming GA-related edit warring when your last block expired. CMD (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Etrius ( Us) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpyridisioAnnis, if you don't understand what's happening here (Wikipedia's internal jargon can be confusing to newcomers), it can reasonably be summarized as if you do anything else that wastes anybody else's time, you will be permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. Until you understand what you're doing, stay away from editing pages; stay away from creating pages; stay away from any page beginning Wikipedia:; if someone more experienced than you tells you you're doing something wrong, don't argue. We extend a lot of good faith to new editors, but the good faith isn't infinite, and we have no space for someone who isn't interested in following our rules. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep saying that I am a new editor? SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have only made 354 edits, which means you're still a relatively inexperienced editor. Further, we have two choices on how to interpret your behaviour: (1) you are a new editor and have not yet learned the proper way to do things, or (2) you are an experienced editor who cannot or will not do things the proper way. Would you prefer that we start following interpretation number two? —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 04:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify something. Do you mean that you want us to assume you're an experienced editor who is refusing or unable to follow policy? I understand your first language isn't English and I just want to make sure you interpreted C.Fred's statement correctly. Etrius ( Us) 05:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s right. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 14:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to assume that you are refusing or unable to follow policy? Are you sure that's what you meant to say? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 15:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef

Due to your above statement of refusing to follow our policies and guidelines, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 28 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't refuse, I am just unable to do so. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 15:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In that case, WP:CIR applies and I'm afraid en.wiki isn't the place for you. Yamla (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Even though I was unable to follow the policies and rules before, maybe I could now. I think that I could fix my WP:CIR issues and even improve a stub-class article to a Featured Article. I just need some time. However, I could only do that Stub-to-FA thing on weekends. I also have a good idea that an administrator should make: Good lists. They're similar to GAs, except they're lists. I have also set up the GL criteria: A Good List is a list that: 1. Maintains a Neutral Point Of View, 2. Looks a lot like a Featured List but needs some minor improvements before gaining Featured List status, 2.1. Is not professionally written but it is well-written, 2.2. Needs very few additional citations, 3. Is stable (Is not under a dispute), 4. Has good clarity. If anyone is interested in GLs and how I could improve stub-class articles to FA status, they need to unblock me. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 04:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

We're done.

Either you are trolling us or you are really this incompetent. I don't care. Either way this has gone on for far too long for any good it may ever have done you or us. After this I will be revoking talk page access. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2022 (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 ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are clearly stating you are unable to follow our policies, the above still stands. Competence is required and following our rules and policies is not optional. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the Wikipedia for me? I hope it has at least 1M pages, because I don't want to hide my hard work. If it has less than 1M pages, i'll try the challenge of getting worthy of adminship and getting a successful adminship request on another Wikimedia project in English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyridisioAnnis (talk • contribs)

English Wikipedia has over 6 million articles. Although the purpose of this talkpage discussion should be regarding blocks/unblocks, not just random rants like this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help you, SpyridisioAnnis, but you are talking about becoming an administrator and right now you are indefinitely blocked from editing any page on this project. I'm afraid you don't understand how Wikipedia works or, if you do understand, and you don't want to follow our policies and guidelines. If you continue with this nonsense, I'm afraid that your ability to edit your talk page will be revoked. Please think about how you got to this point, how many different editors and admins came to your talk page, trying to give you advice which you rejected. Maybe in 6 months, you might have a chance of having an unblock request granted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not continuing with that nonsense. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #66233

is closed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations \| March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]