User talk:Charalampe

I see that you have

Thank you. I used the WP:AFD as you suggested. --Charalampe (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Special:Permalink/1039217136#Charalampe refusing deletion objections —valereee (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have created a WP:AFD for an article on wikipedia that is misleading, false and innacurate. Someone blocked me for no reason other than what it wrote. The reason stated at the block says: "Disruptive editing; personal attacks" which none is true and you could see on your own. In fact the user making heavy edits to that article, altered my text which i noted to the discussion, which actually was disruptive. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2018_Moscow%E2%80%93Constantinople_schism Now im not able to add more information and this happened on purpose so i won't be able to do so. The same user that doing heavy edit to that vague and innacurate article, has been already blocked in Wikipedia Commons "13:01, 16 August 2021 Taivo talk contribs blocked Veverve talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (creating bad deletion requests after warnings)" See here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Veverve I don't know if this a gang of people, or trolls. However im pretty sure this article and other similar are for deletion. I presented with a fact and a statement direct from parties involved about this wiki article, and that statement says otherwise. The statement comes from "president" to equivalent of a government let's say. I won't waste my time to detabe innacurate and false things when there is a clear fact on the matter, if Wikipedia allows users with already bad behaviour to target normal users and act as gangs and try to twist their behaviour, this the reason for low standards. Surprisinly seconds after i place this article for deletion, there were already comments on the deletion discussion page from other users. After they blocked me, then silence. So i am appealing to be unblocked and advise you to act on the matter as administrators. Please also read this, the mod that places the block after he notified on Indicents page with twisted reason as if i was vandalizing, here his threats : I've blocked Charalampe for one week. At least they should stop disrupting the AfD. I considered an indefinite block, but there is a slim chance the user can reform.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC) at the link, see the entire section. -- So if i understood these are "threats" from the user that blocked me for "person attacks", please read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Charalampe_refusing_deletion_objections Act accordinigly. Charalampe (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When you are blocked for disruption and personal attacks, posting an appeal that continues the

WP:GAB prior to posting a new unblock request. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:00, 17 August 2021 (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.

You haven't point out the disruption and personal attacks because there weren't any. You mean i should say sorry for receiving personal attacks and reporting bad behaviour, but the issue here is an article which this is the whole topic which i have been targeted by a gang of users.--Charalampe (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charalampe, Bbb23 wasn't threatening you. They were telling you that you should stop disrupting the AfD, which you were doing by making multiple !votes. They gave you a short block to give you some time to maybe try to figure out how we work here, because basically everything you've done today is telling us you don't understand what's going on here. I'm willing to discuss with you what the problems are, but only if you can promise me you're going to stop talking about other editors and start talking only about the issues at the article and the issues with your own conduct here that got you blocked. Ping me (start your post with {{u|Valereee}}, then sign the post with four tildes) when you respond, to make sure I see it. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charalampe, calling me a use[r] with already bad behaviour who target[s] normal users and act as gangs and try to twist their behaviour is a personnal attack. I cannot identify the other people you are

alluding to

, as I am the only user you mentioned. Also, calling other users' edits vandalism when they are not is disruptive.

Yes, I was recently banned for one week from WCommons (my unblock request has still not been reviewed), I admit it. No need to bring it many times, it will not tarnish me, which seems to be your goal. It will not, because the mistakes I unknowingly made on WCommons were - as annoying as they may have been for some - minor.

I am willing to discuss the contents and titles of the articles if needed, once you are unblocked. Veverve (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss on your own now all you want. You can keep the titles, as you talking as you own it. This only will get bad reputation for the Russian Church, out of your very small and with bad intention actions. There is a reason now to point out that Russian Church is a Schismatic Church and have breakway from the Orthodoxy. This what the article claims, this what will get. A Russian Church on its very own also. --Charalampe (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was targeted personal attack, they been twisted things. There is no reason to debate. They can do what they like and i can do the same. They want to have false information on their pages and have trolls and gangs to run around it, very well.

@valereee Thank you very much indeed for all the very well good instructions, which i followed in fact. However wikipedia have a larger issue to whom they pay. Im sure there are good people, i seen, but in this topic i see threats against me, twisted things, just because i point out common sense and common fact.

But if wikipedia tells me i don't have free voice, and trolls can. Is their website. This only will led to heavy and bad reputation of the Russian Church as a cosequence.--Charalampe (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee Thank you very much and i do appreciate that. I noticed all your instructions previously and i did so. In other circumstances i will definitely do that, because i have no reason and i don't bother about other users other than the information. However after what i see i don't believe i should have any part to wikipedia. I will request my account and any files to be deleted. If you have instructions how to do so, please do let me know. Thank you.--Charalampe (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charalampe, I'm afraid you can't delete your account, and any contributions you've made anywhere on the site belong to Wikipedia, which is true for all editors. (There's a notification of that at the bottom of every edit box you open.) This is to allow editors to easily follow the history of edits to any page. You can blank this page if you like, and you can stop using the account. —valereee (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: The user cannot blank the declined unblock request until after their block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, sorry. I knew that lol... —valereee (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]