User talk:Charalampe

PRODs
I see that you have Proposed a couple of articles for deletion. The deletion tags were removed and you have restored them If you read the policy on proposed deletion you will see that the tag can be removed for any or no stated reason. Once it is removed it can not be restored nor can a PROD with a different reason be added. If you feel these should be deleted you will need to use WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 11:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

August 2021
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * 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, then sign the post with four tildes) when you respond, to make sure I see it. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * The user cannot blank the declined unblock request until after their block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, sorry. I knew that lol... —valereee (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)