User talk:ApolloCarmb

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Because of your comments at the George Soros talk page. WP:BLP policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ApolloCarmb! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ApolloCarmb, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Hello, I'm SamHolt6. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, White Helmets (Syrian Civil War), 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Ramallah pornography controversy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Al-Watan

Trump–Russia dossier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DNC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Joan Saura. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the consensus required provision of at least two separate articles, 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Please self-revert. Geogene (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You restored content that was challenged on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Because the article is subject to editing restrictions, you are not allowed to do that according to the prominent notice that appears when editing. The notice says:

You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. You are required to abide by a civility restriction, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

You should use the talk page if you wish to seek consensus for including this material. Violating the page editing restrictions can result in you being blocked or topic banned.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note you are not supposed to edit the topic area until you are Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users - 30 days of tenure and 500 edits.Icewhiz (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ApolloCarmb, if you don't know what you're doing, and if you think that terms like "Palestinian" and "ay-rab" and all that mean the same thing, don't be editing in that topic area. Cause right now it looks like you're just another right-winger/nationalist here to make a political point in our encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And from the same article, this, the second time you remove a valid tag (after it had been restored by E.M.Gregory). You don't seem to understand the tag, which baffles me: the tag asks for location of "mention", meaning WHERE IN THE DOCUMENT, and you say "no necessary"? And earlier you removed it and said "The US gov is not good enough?" Well, the US government isn't necessarily a reliable or properly secondary source, but that is not a discussion I want to have right now. The document linked to is quite long, and an indication of where the mention is would be very handy; one can count paragraphs, for instance. So I restored the tag. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Stateless nation. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't your first warning about unsourced material, so you have no excuse. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this discussion together. You told me on my talk page the lead sentence is unsourced. Here it is: A stateless nation is a political term for an ethnic group or nation that does not possess its own state^[1] and is not the majority population in any nation state.^[2] Would you like to explain to me what is unsourced about that? We don't even need sources in the lead if they are in the body of the article. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why that would exclude Texans. The lead says "or". Therefore a group (like Texans) does not need to be an ethnic group to be considered a "stateless nation".ApolloCarmb (talk) 12

19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No one is talking about Texans except you. In any case, it's unsourced. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your source has 11 pages related to Texas. What page discusses Texians (not Texans)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Stikkyy t/c 04:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ramallah pornography controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Watan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just warning you again, do not continue with your personal attacks, such as this one. Also, your wikihounding is unwarranted, bordering WP:NOTHERE actions. I know you are new to Wikipedia (or it appears so), so please do not take things personally. We are here to work together.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to your recent edit on my talk page regarding your behavior:

"ZiaLater I edit articles related to socialist figures. It's just a coincidence. For proof here's an edit I made to the Joseph Stalin article. ApolloCarmb (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)"

This raises questions about you being WP:SPA. I understand that you are new and think you should review this. As for the hounding, I made edits to the corruption in Nicaragua article and you followed me there. My edits on Medal of Valor (Peru), which was only recently created by me at the time, were also hounded by you. You also hounded on the UNASUR article as well. Here are multiple other instances ([1], [2], [3]). Although some of these edits were fine, none of this was a coincidence and you lying about this has only made things more difficult for me...----ZiaLater (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: ZiaLater if you think me editing South American politics related articles is proof of "wikihounding" then I really do not know what to say to you. I would imagine plenty of people edit South American politics related articles.ApolloCarmb (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not these articles, especially not shortly after my own edits. The Corruption in Nicaragua had not been edited for months/years. The Joaquín Crespo article had not been edited for months/years. Same with the article of his wife Jacinta Parejo. The Medal of Valor (Peru) article was hardly even a day old. You are only digging yourself deeper. Stop it.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of a watchlist, @ZiaLater:. As for the Medal of Valor (Peru) article yes I followed you there but that is the only article. Oh and by the way if you keep breaching WP:BLP on Nicolas Maduro Guerra I will be forced to report you.ApolloCarmb (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the wording as you submitted that... Anyways, the only reason that I am understanding right now is because you have at least made some decent edits and were somewhat honest about your motives (editing articles related to socialism). For the future, please be more honest and not be so combative. No more hounding. In your short time here, you have already been blocked, were abusive towards other users and have been involved with edit warring. I know that it can be difficult being new here, so let's have things go more smoothly moving forward.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would you say I am combative? I need to know so I am not "combative" in the future.ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in edit wars, calling users "stupid" and "trolls" and reverting certain edits with the summary of "de-propagandising". That's a good start.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this behaviour. What you are doing does not make sense. I can change things. I can move pages, especially when the title is factually inaccurate and does not depics the topic correctly.

Consensus does not mean I can't make changes. --TIAYN (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm stopping since you're showing bad faith.. You are reverting ALL my edits and not this one. You have something personally against me. The name of the article is inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement".. I'm following the rules, not you :P --TIAYN (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. ----ZiaLater (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ApolloCarmb. Besides the concerns that previous editors have voiced, I also noticed that you may be POV pushing. While I've noticed that you've done useful edits in articles such as linking with other pages, this has gone to extent of deleting complete and referenced paragraphs: [1][2][3][4][5] Please consider discussing your edits beforehand in the article's talk page or adding sources to them, specially if you feel that they will be polemic. Having called me a stalker makes me feel more worried about this. According to WP:HOUND, I've done my best not to engage in personal attacks or other disruptive behavior, but respectfully, once that I knew this editing was not unique to Venezuelan articles. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bolivarian diaspora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intergovernmental (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ApolloCarmb: so far you're the only editor who's pushing to delete infoboxes, and you have been previosly called by other users to avoid edit warring, in some instanced even deleting their messages and, if I'm not mistaken, violating WP:3RR. There's also no need to call my edit "rediculous", and I have previously asked you to please adopt a more cordial tone. I'm doing my best to assume good faith because I've also previously recognize the helpful edits you've done, but these actions seem to be against the policy of civility. Please reconsider. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jamez42, you have also violated the 3RR (multiple times I might add). Regardless you are the only user pushing for the retention of the quoteboxes. My concern is these quoteboxes are being used to push an anti-Maduro narrative.ApolloCarmb (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer diffs if I have indeed violated the rule. In any case you're free to add quotes that support the elections. It should be noted, though, that these are no "anti-Maduro" quotes, but rather criticizing the process. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Regardless you are the only user pushing for the retention of the quoteboxes". Again, you're lying. You are the only user trying to whitewash articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Your edit on Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 violated WP:3RR.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Venezuelan regional elections, 2017 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Please see this edit and this source.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Venezuelan regional elections, 2017 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

See this edit and this source.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ApolloCarmb. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. --ZiaLater (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Notice that this discussion is to find a consensus about the current article disagreements.--Jamez42 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before making nonsensical claims, read, it's free.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, just by looking at the article history, it's become pretty clear who is needing to stick to WP:BRD.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on putting the references after a variant not sustained by those refs (instead of putting the sources after the variant they're verifying?). I don't think you are acting on good faith.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Xavier Domènech i Sampere 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Scr★pIron^IV 15:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jude Collins 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/Jude Collins 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. --ZiaLater (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2018 (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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct at Jude Collins was abysmal, especially as there's an open edit warring report against you, involving multiple articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Can you elaborate, please?

ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You created a blatant attack article clearly created to disparage a living person and edit-warred to remove the speedy deletion tag. Your short history of editing has been altogether abysmal, not just your actions around Jude Collins. If you demonstrate continued disregard for our policies upon expiry of your block you should expect to be topic banned from BLPs altogether under the discretionary sanctions that you have already been made aware of above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of listening to what other, more experienced editors are saying to you, you seem to robotically reach for the undo/revert button, and toss in a few insults for good measure. You've been here less than a month and show no change from the behavior that earned you your first block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:Can you give an example of me not "listening to what other, more experienced editors are saying to you"? I very rarely "toss in a few insults for good measure".ApolloCarmb (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that admins can see your deleted contributions, right? "vandalism", "Your incompetence is ruining the process, follow wiki procedures". Accusing the other editor of incompetence when it was you who was not following "wiki procedure" is... interesting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: ZiaLater was blanking the page while an "Articles for deletion" vote was in progress.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the "wiki procedure" that says you can't do that for pages deemed attack articles. I can certainly show you the policy which states you can't remove speedy deletion tags from pages you create. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:I just logically assumed that was the case. Only one guy (ZiaLater) had deemed the article an "attack article" at this stage. As far as I am aware I never removed a speedy deletion tag.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an uninvolved administrator to verify NeilN's claims, here you go: you removed the CSD tag three times. First at 17:26, 9 May 2018; next at 17:41, 9 May 2018; and finally at 17:44, 9 May 2018. As Neil points out, we admins can see deleted contributions, and part of the reason for this is peer review. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I did not even see that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, I don't like being lied to, so I've revoked your talk page access. You can appeal this block through WP:UTRS. If you want to know how I'm being lied to, I'll let you know: the first revert you used the edit summary "vandalism", the second you used the edit summary "here's an AFD ongoing. Your incompetence is ruining the process, follow wiki procedures." the third you used the edit summary "stop blanking the page, there's an AFD onging, gain a consensus". So no, you did know that you did this three times and you are currently just wasting our time. If you do appeal through UTRS, I encourage you to be truthful with them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the tags (displayed in pink) were added by two different editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #21475 was submitted on May 09, 2018 20:56:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #21478 was submitted on May 09, 2018 21:26:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Cuba–Ireland relations has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Please see this edit and this source.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Michael Laffan, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Bradv 01:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Basque male cyclists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]