User talk:Disconstantinople

May 2023

Hello, I'm Technopat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Intelligentsia. 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. Thank you. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, you may be blocked from editing. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i made a mistake on the intelligentsia one, however, i edited one to show that it was in progress and you removed it altogether, despite it not being put there by me in the first place Disconstantinople (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because the {{Dead end}} template is only to be used when an article contains zero links to other articles. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh i see, thanks Disconstantinople (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR issues.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 31 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that it is not allowed to use multiple accounts on the same device - though originally I was unaware of this rule. I will no longer use the account "Goakipa" if I am unbanned, and would support the ban being upheld on that account to ensure that. Disconstantinople (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:SOCK says nothing about using "multiple account on the same device". Yamla (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2023 (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 are mistaken. The device used is irrelevant. Apparently you were using multiple accounts in a

way that abused the Community. You might want refactor and explain what you thought you were doing.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

My intentions were not to abuse the the community, I would like to apologise for the fact that my actions have been deemed to have done that. My intentions were to append articles on Wikipedia in a helpful manner. The reason I utilised two accounts in doing so is because when I created this account I was unable to access my old one (Goakipa), however, upon discovering the requirements to become an Auto-Confirmed User, I wanted to see if my old account would qualify for this; unfortunately, I discovered that I had not made an account which was able to edit but I had simply logged in. After this I continued to edit on two accounts, using them interchangeably, which I now realise is in violation of the rules. My utilisation of a second account to revert edits of others who had changed things which I had added on my first account was, in hindsight, naïve and clearly against the expectations of editors. In the future, if unbanned, I will thoroughly read the expectations and user guides for beginner editors so that I do not make similar mistakes again in the future. Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal, and I hope that if the verdict is in my favour I can become an upstanding user in both what I intend and what I do. Disconstantinople (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

My intentions were not to abuse the the community, I would like to apologise for the fact that my actions have been deemed to have done that. My intentions were to append articles on Wikipedia in a helpful manner. The reason I utilised two accounts in doing so is because when I created this account I was unable to access my old one (Goakipa), however, upon discovering the requirements to become an Auto-Confirmed User, I wanted to see if my old account would qualify for this; unfortunately, I discovered that I had not made an account which was able to edit but I had simply logged in. After this I continued to edit on two accounts, using them interchangeably, which I now realise is in violation of the rules. My utilisation of a second account to revert edits of others who had changed things which I had added on my first account was, in hindsight, naïve and clearly distortion of consensus. In the future, if unbanned, I will thoroughly read the expectations and user guides for beginner editors so that I do not make similar mistakes again in the future. Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal, and I hope that if the verdict is in my favour I can become an upstanding user in both what I intend and what I do.Disconstantinople (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I do not for even a second believe that you did this unintentionally. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:18, 4 June 2023 (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.

Disconstantinople (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, Seraphimblade, i don't care what you believe

i will continue on this platform to make edits in good faith, albeit now under a different alias and likely on a different device

your efforts to prevent my good faith edits have failed

Socks blocked and tagged. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Daniel II of Antioch

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Daniel II of Antioch, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

here. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Concern regarding Draft:Jasmine Wright

request

that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

talk) 11:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Your draft article, Draft:Jasmine Wright

Hello, Disconstantinople. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jasmine Wright

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion

. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]