Hi Maxim.il89! 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 Lectonar ( talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the article David A. Stewart. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, Maxim.il89, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Your recent editing history at Manchester United F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Govvy ( talk) 21:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Really Govvy? Have you left the same message to User:PeeJay2K3? He's on his third revert, you know. Also, I made sure to argue my case on the talk page after his first revert, he only bothered responding there a few hours ago.

You have done the same edit four times now, PeeJay hasn't quite broken the 3RR rule! That would require another revert. I suggest you watch it if you don't want an admin to ban you for a few days! :/ Govvy ( talk) 21:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

While something is in discussion it is generally the done thing to discuss with all those taking part, and to listen to what people say before reverting again, and again, and again. Continuing to revert while a discussion is taking place is viewed by most editors as contrary to having an open discussion. Koncorde ( talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. 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. Govvy ( talk) 21:43, 11 September 2019 (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.)

Newcastle United F.C. ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mike Ashley

Sunderland A.F.C. ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Allen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC) reply

To quote consensus:

Supporters should only be mentioned in the article on the club when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list.

What this is not is consensus to include people's opinions, feelings, or associations with third party organisations, what they had for tea, who has met the Queen or anything else. Their inclusion should be:

• 1. Clearly associated with the teams fortunes or specifically their impact upon a specific event.
• 2. Should be directly referencing the impact that they had.

Discussion of how people felt about a stadium being demolished is barely notable even for the main article of the stadium itself. Within a single season, almost passably relevant. But even then Wikipedia is not about creating memorials of people responding to things. Koncorde ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent contributions at Sunderland A.F.C. appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 you 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. Leaky caldron ( talk) 21:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

You have been spoken to on multiple occasions now about your contributions, and how inappropriate they are. We even went to an RFC just entirely for your benefit in order to demonstrate how against consensus you are with your inclusions. You have been warned once this month already for edit warring and failing to engage with points of consensus or gaining consensus for what you are trying to include. Where I have collaborated and explained the correct format and appropriate content, you have blanket reverted and attempted to steam roll changes on each article you touch regardless of formatting, context, or tone. Koncorde ( talk) 21:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I think, given the opposition to pretty much most of your edits, it's time to start discussing it on a talk page rather than continue to edit war over it on an article page, don't you think? I'm happy to help, and can start a new section, even somewhere neutral, for you to bring your opinions on what should be in the Sunderland article, and give some space and latitude to others who may wish to discuss it. What do you think? The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Haven't you noticed that I've actually started those discussions in all talk pages?

You started them after you were warned, and after you had already had the consensus explained to you. And you are continuing to revert on an FA to changes that have been claimed to you. Koncorde ( talk) 11:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

That's not true. I didn't "start" them - I was told not to add famous celebrities to "supporters," and checked the discussion in the WikiProject page.

To follow the consensus, I stopped adding names of famous ones to the supporters' page, but what I did was, following the consensus, added those names that played a role with establishing the club charity, which fits the consensus.

You're reverting me, edit warring, and ignoring the talk page.

I rest my case. Your version of reality does not match the reality of the situation, or the sequence of events that can be seen through the edit logs. Koncorde ( talk) 12:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Sunderland A.F.C. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Maxim.il89. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of your complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. There has been a war from September 11 through 15 in which both User:Koncorde and User:The Rambling Man have undone your edits. Though the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RFC: Celebrity fans may have some nuances they are not big enough to allow your material back in to the article. You are risking a block if you revert again unless you have persuaded the others first. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Try not to get into too much detail in the main Sunderland article. It should summarise the main history points but doesn't need to go into great detail. Koncorde ( talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I've noticed many notable names are missing from the club history, it's ridiculous.

That's fine on the main History article, but the main team article should try and be concise. Mentioning important players in key teams, or big results are fine (I have no particular issue with your current additions) but just be aware that the core topic here is the club, not the club history. For that the reader is directed to the more detailed history article. Koncorde ( talk) 20:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

You're right about that, but I'm making sure to add only the top scorers and leaders. Names like Arthur Bridgett and Ned Doig should be in both.

I suspect the main article needs some condensing to be honest and rebalancing between the historic eras. Try and remember to sign your posts btw. Koncorde ( talk) 20:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

That's my next step. I think they have too much information on recent years. I mean, describing the signings in a random season when nothing notable happened, really? While there's a lack of information on the seasons when Sunderland actually succeeded. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 20:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Expand the others before reducing the most extended one. When signings are pointless, try summarising them such as "They signed 6 players over the summer, including a striker to replace Quinn" and then you name the important one. Or if there was a large transfer coup, or even just a large signing in general. Same with results. Mentioning each result is pointless, but referencing streaks or sequences, or achievements or milestones is preferred in the main article. Koncorde ( talk) 20:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Makes sense. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 20:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. In general, you can't add images from the web on to Wikimedia Commons unless they come from certain sites which permit that to be done. No indication that the SB nation article has that. I have looked on a site which has photos of places in Britain that can be uploaded (geograph.co.uk) but unfortunately there are two images of that pub, but none of the mural. So you have two options, either travel to Sunderland yourself and take a photo which can then go on Commons as your own work, or just settle for having the article as a ref, then at least people will see the picture of the mural when they click on the link. Crowsus ( talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Got you, thanks!

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

If you think that’s enough, I’m not going to argue. Red Jay ( talk) 22:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Marc-André ter Stegen, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite ( talk) 23:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Marc-André ter Stegen, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite ( talk) 00:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Chris Mullin. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Bagumba ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

No, I haven't been canvassing - I've messaged people who were already involved in editing those pages or took part in the previous discussion. Isn't the idea to get as many people as possible to present their point of view? The previous discussion was a joke, hardly anyone took part it in. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 14:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The messages you put on editors' talk pages weren't worded neutrally. A neutral notification would be something like "There is a proposal to rename Chris Mullin which you have previously edited. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chris Mullin." Your messages clearly conveyed your point-of-view on the issue, which violates WP:Canvassing. Schazjmd  (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Agree to disagree. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 14:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Please reconsider your reflexive defensiveness. I think you want to do what's right for the encyclopedia, but are just unfamiliar with all the rules and guidelines that the community use. I'm trying to help you understand how your messages were contrary to WP:CANVAS, because they really were. When multiple editors point out a problem, it's a good idea to listen and learn from them. Schazjmd  (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I understand is, but fact is, I went out my my way to make sure there is decent participation in this debate. The previous debate was a joke, it hardly had anyone! Maxim.il89 ( talk) 19:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Chris Mullin, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Harrias ^talk 08:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

What are you talking about? Maxim.il89 ( talk) 09:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--— Bagumba ( talk) 11:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Yep, I get it, you're into basketball, a member of WikiProject basketball... so you've taken this personally. Get a life ;-) Thank you. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 13:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm someone who doesn't give a flying flip about basketball. It seems clear that your behaviour is the problem, nothing to do with anyone's like or dislike of basketball. As I noted at ANI, not only was your notification message non neutral, but it seems to have been selective. You keep claiming stuff like "I've messaged people who were already involved in editing those pages or took part in the previous discussion." yet it looks like you failed to notify anyone who opposed you PoV even if they took part in the previous discussion. AFAICT, you only notified those who seemed to support your PoV. So it's ironic you also claim in the same breath "Isn't the idea to get as many people as possible to present their point of view?" when you're apparently not interested in the PoV of those who disagree with you. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sure, so the guy who posted it in the basketball WikiProject but not in the ones involving politics is in the right. Gotcha! Maxim.il89 ( talk) 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Notifying basketball Wikiprojects without notifying other relevant projects would indeed be a significant problem. But this never happened. Since you had already canvassed to the politics Wikiproject, neutrally notifying the Wikiprojects you had missed in your canvassing was an acceptable course of action. The same way it was correct to neutrally notify the editors you missed when you wanted to "get as many people as possible to present their point of view" but the only managed to notify those people you believed shred your view. It obviously makes zero sense to notify the Wikiproject you had already notified since despite your non neutral wording, no one seems to have mass removed your second round of canvassing to the Wikiprojects anymore than they did you first. Nil Einne ( talk) 20:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I posted in the political WikiProjects after Rikster2 wrote how he was considering to post on the basketball one, very simple.

In any case, if you really want to go on about it, you can see how I changed my formulation when posting in WikiProjects once I was notified of canvassing rules (which I wasn't aware of before). Maxim.il89 ( talk) 20:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Anyone reading their comments can see they weren't serious. And regardless of what idiocy some other editor suggested they would do, this does not excuse you engaging in misbehaviour first. As I said at ANI, you are always going to come across worse if you selective notify, regardless of how genuine and reasonable your belief was that someone else was going to (rather than already has) notified. There are plenty of ways you can deal with an editor who is planning to canvass. Canvassing first is not one of them.

Also these notifications [1] [2] are clearly not neutral notifications. They may have been a bit better than your first set, but all that really means is that your first set were utterly terrible. If you had engaged with the editors who had tried to discuss this with you above before posting, it's quite likely they would have explained this to you. Indeed there was already a suggest wording you could have used before your second round of notifications. Instead you largely ignored their concerns, and acted like you knew what you were doing when you did not so you still posted non-neutral notifications.

Look we were all new at times and we all make mistakes. And I myself have the tendency to get defensive when challenged. But ultimately, when a bunch of editors are telling you you're doing something wrong, it's likely you are. So instead of getting defensive, you need to listen and talk to them and try and understand what the problem is. There are also resources like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk where you can get help. There are plenty of editors willing and able to help you learn if you try.

And by the same token, most editors here are fairly forgiving. But they have a lot less patience when the same editor keeps making the same or very similar mistakes in part because they're refusing to listen to what they're being told. I think the vast majority of us, probably all of us, still do not want you to be blocked. What we want you to do is engage with us and learn from your mistakes and stop repeating them so you can become a better editor and there is no reason to block you. Punishing people is explicitly against what we do here, blocks are only meant to be preventative and not punitive. But by the same token since if you refuse to learn and accept help, blocking may be the only option.

Nil Einne ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

How exactly was my second formulation not neutral? I on purpose wanted to present both views, including the one I disagree with, to make it neutral.

Well, I knew what I was doing... to an extent. I knew I was making a big discussion, which was the intention, obviously breaking a rule was not the intention.

I know I made a mistake, that's not what annoys me, that's easy - I'll simply just "ping" people in the future (someone mentioned it, but it sounds good). What annoys me is how easy people go for "block" threats, to me it just sounds laughable.

For example, one guy suggested to ping people instead of sending them messages, I understand it's some automatic invitation... perfect, that's useful advice.

This User:Bagumba guy started sending block threats, but he didn't actually give me any useful information. Obviously I'm happy to take useful information on board, and I do respect the fact there are rules I need to adhere to. It's how quick people go "BLOOCCKK" that annoys me.

I admin a group that is over 80k people on Facebook, and I definitely don't threaten people who are new right away. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 21:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

As with many communities, Wikipedia has to some extent developed it's own norms which may be different from those elsewhere. You should be very careful about assuming what applies somewhere else you volunteer applies here, as our norms, needs and requirements may be different.

Anyway there are lots of problems with your second message. But the most obvious ones are that you tried to summarise what you claim are the points for and against the proposal. You are not supposed to do that since it may influence editor's views before they visit the RfC, well actually RM in this case. It may even stop editors from visiting since they feel there is no point, the issue is clear cut. Remember that RMs (as with any RfC like discussion) are explicitly not votes, they are intended to be part of a consensus building process.

Also, your summary is misleading. You claim that the only argument against your proposal was "The basketball player has more views". I'm not going to double check, but I'm fairly sure even at the time you posted it was not the only argument against your proposal. Further you raised the claim "while outside the US he's hardly known" without any counterbalance. In reality this claim is highly disputed in the RM.

And go back to our canvassing guidelines. Remember that it says "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." Do you really think your second message complies with this? Is it brief?

I would emphasise once again that Schazjmd had already given you a simple wording. Further the canvassing guideline also mentions the template {{ Please see}} that you can use. Linked in the see also of please see is {{ WikiProject please see}} designed for WikiProjects. And I'd also mention again that if you didn't want to use either of these options or weren't sure how, you could have asked about them or asked about your wording here or somewhere that offers help before posting. It seemed likely that Schazjmd and likely others including Bagumba would have helped you if you'd asked.

AFAICT, most of the block "threats" have just been standard templated warnings. To be clear, this means they are templates developed by the community for the purpose of notifying editors of something, there's a good chance the editor using them didn't develop the wording. The "you may be blocked" notification is there because there because ultimately you will be blocked if you continue and it's important you understand. (We often won't block editors if they weren't informed they may be blocked.) Further while we use escalating warnings for some things, for others like canvassing we don't. This is probably for several reasons the key one is that editors are supposed to stop canvassing the moment they are informed. Also canvassing rarely comes up for completely new editors.

And you have been here since at least August 2019 so cannot claim to be a completely new editor. While it's fine that there are still lots of things you don't understand, by now you should have learnt to accept (even if not like) that blocks will sometimes be mentioned. And you do have a responsibility to learn how to edit appropriately here, no matter how you feel about the way you were approached. And I'd note that whatever you think of the canvassing template and what Bagumba said, you were approached by Schazjmd and made no real attempt to engage with them. Why did Bagumba's template or anything they said elsewhere, stop you from doing that?

Also I wouldn't call pinging an "automatic invitation". It's way to alert someone to something. Pinging can be used for the purpose of notifying editors of RfC like discussions. But since pings don't always work and also because it can clutter a discussion, some editors feel talk page notifications are better. (Just like they are explicitly forbidden in most cases where notifications are compulsory e.g. ANI.) I'm fairly sure hundreds if not thousands of talk page notifications of RfC like discussions are given every day without problem. And since you can't ping WikiProjects, if you are going to notify them you do need to learn how to do it neutrally. What all of this adds up to is that IMO you need to try and understand where you went wrong and why.

Even if you use pings, you still need to understand the importance of notification selection and indeed this is another risk of pings. Because they are relatively easy to use, there's probably an increased risk you won't think about who you are pinging and why. Based on your responses so far, it's not clear to me that you understand that the way you selected editors to notify the first time was wrong. By all appearances, you only notified those who agreed with you. As I've said, notifying everyone (with reasonable exceptions) who had participated in the previous RM or on the talk page likely would have been okay if done neutrally but this isn't what you did.

And further you then followed this up by once again selectively notifying WikiProjects most of which seemed more likely you support your PoV. Again, whatever you believed some other editor planned to do, they had not done anything at the time. There is no excuse for selectively notifying WikiProjects that support your PoV based on what some other editor may or may not do in the future. You are responsible for your actions, and you cannot rely on another editor to correct them. Indeed an editor who indicates genuine intention to canvass and refuses to talked out of it could easily be blocked before it happens. Frankly I don't think there was any need to notify quite so many projects. Again that's why it's better to talk about it first especially when you're relatively new, probably in the RM. Discuss with others what WikiProjects to notify. This doesn't have to be long, come up with a list and ask others if they have any comments.

Nil Einne ( talk) 09:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

P.S. Since my reply was already very long, I didn't want to go into details but canvassing aside, you also really need to consider the concerns editor's have expressed about what you've said crossing into the WP:NPA line. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

That is very useful information, thanks. It's much easier to just use templates, and more neutral, so I'll stick to that. I didn't know t here were temeplates.

Oh I do understand it, but I didn't know those rules about who you can contact at the time. I'd do it differently now.

Let's just put it this way, I don't think that what I did is morally wrong, but I wouldn't have done it had I known it was against the rules.

If I know the rules, I go by them, and obviously from now on I'll be doing it differently.

I thought it's much more simply, like Facebook groups, I didn't realise there are such procedures. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 11:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Wanted to leave one more comment since it occurred to me what I said may be misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting it would have been okay to notify the Wikiprojects including an accurate summation of the points for and against the RM based on the state of play at the time. You should always only post a brief and neutral message. I only addressed the fact your summation wasn't accurate to further illustrate why it was a problem. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

To be fair, the easiest solution might be simply to use a neutral template, and that would solve many issues. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Maxim.il89, it looks like you're new to the Good Article nomination process. I imagine that's why you are not acquainted with the the following from the nomination instructions page: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. You have never contributed to the article, so you aren't a significant contributor. I have therefore reverted your nomination as out of process.

Just looking at the article, I can see that it doesn't yet meet the GA criteria in a number of ways. The lead section is far too short and fails to summarize the rest of the article, there is repetition in the body of the article, it needs a good copyedit, and the sourcing is not adequate to meet verifiability requirements. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, and best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Maxim, It's great you use sources to back up your statements, but please use the citation templates for sourcing as bare URLs are erroneous. Especially in featured articles such as Sunderland A.F.C., the quality of sources and sourcing is very important. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

To be fair I thought Wikipedia sorts it out automatically, OK, got it, thanks. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 14:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

That's alright. The easiest way (for me at least) is to edit in the visual edit mode as you only have to click the cite template above to place your ref. Fill out all information, but if it's an English-language reference, there's no need to fill out the language parameter. The url-status and the three archive-url parameters are also redundant (if it's a working link of course). WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 15:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I was wondering why my references looked so ugly at the bottom of the page lol, thank you! That's very useful information. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 18:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Haha, no problem. The Manuals of Style are also quite handy if you're stuck at something (I'm really no Wiki guru myself so I use those occasionally). WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 19:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Politics and sports into Association football and politics. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa ( talk) 19:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sunderland A.F.C. supporters 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 REDMAN 2019 -- REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 11:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I really appreciate it. I'm not the only one who wrote it, but it's an article I'm proud of taking part in expanding. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 12:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Jewish Nobel laureates; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Grayfell ( talk) 19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC) reply

And you are...? Not edit warring? Maxim.il89 ( talk) 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 19:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Jewish Nobel laureates; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. JBL ( talk) 22:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not the one edit warring, are you serious? Look at the talk page. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 22:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC) reply

It appears you have violated WP:3RR by reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period. Regardless of other people's actions, this is a bright line rule. Grayfell ( talk) 00:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Not really, because my edits are different to each other as I've been changing the formulations, because unlike you I'm not obsessed with edit warring. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 00:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Per WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. I have made only one edit in the last few days, but 3RR is a bright line rule regardless of my actions. Grayfell ( talk) 00:43, 15 October 2020 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Maxim.il89 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: ). Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 01:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. jps ( talk) 01:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

This is BULLSH**... I literally said numerous how the theory in question is a pseudo-science and how it's false, so again, BULL**it. I literally stated it on every talk page, and [3].

There is no intersection between race, ethnicity, and human abilities and behaviour.

All I did was to to point out in the article about Jewish Nobel ptize winners that most of them are Ashkenazi. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 08:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

The article Sunderland A.F.C. supporters you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. supporters for issues which need to be addressed. (I have asked for a second opinion and therefore most of the comments are from a different user.) REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 10:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jews. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Please do not do a knee-jerk revert of Grayfell's edits. You need to discuss these changes on the talk page with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• I have written a notice to post here after blocking you for edit warring. However, I see that would be your first block so my suggestion would be to self-revert at Jews and wait until a clear consensus emerges at talk. See WP:DR which does not include aggressively editing. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.   Johnuniq ( talk) 09:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Edit warring is defined at WP:EW. Even it weren't, Wikipedia requires collaboration and disputes are not settled by determining who is willing to revert most. There is a report regarding disruption at another article at the edit warring noticeboard ( permalink) and edit warring on multiple pages is particularly undesirable even if that report resulted only in page protection. Don't edit war. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Your revert at Jews was 01:34, 17 October 2020. My warning above was 40 minutes after that. You have now resumed at the talk page with 08:46, 17 October 2020 and 08:48, 17 October 2020 but have not self-reverted and your talk page comments show no indication regarding the problems of edit warring. Accordingly I have issued the above block. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seaburn Casuals 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 Bait30 -- Bait30 ( talk) 02:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

The article Seaburn Casuals you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Seaburn Casuals 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 Bait30 -- Bait30 ( talk) 04:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Are you still available to work on the GA review? It has been over two weeks since the review started. If you are unable to continue then please let me know and I can ask if anyone else is able to carry it on, if that is what you would prefer. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 17:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi :-) I've had some difficulties coming up at work, that's why I'm not currently working on it. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 21:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Do you think that you would be able to finish it over the next week? REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 16:40, 5 November 2020 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Maxim.il89 reported by User:Koncorde (Result: ). Thank you. Koncorde ( talk) 10:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I have closed the report and blocked you from editing Sunderland A.F.C for 48 hours. I would advise reading this policy, as it will explain why you have got into trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

IT'S NOT ABOUT CADENZA, I GAVE A LIST! Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I'd like to echo the comments by Kevin above. If you revert the removal again, you may be partially blocked from the page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Are you serious? They wrote it's about Cadenza, it's not! I have a LIST of pages! Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• The reason your ArbCom case was shut down is that ArbCom is for long protracted disputes that have been through other types of dispute resolution ( WP:DR) and/or community scrutiny (i.e. WP:ANI) first. This issue appears to have taken none of those steps. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I looked at the admin noticeboard, it has no section on harassment, only on 3rr! Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

As I said, your case is ludicrous and likely to WP:BOOMERANG against you. But if you insist, WP:ANI is the correct forum. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

An article you recently created, Cadenza Piano, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Why wasn't it put to a vote. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Why wasn't it put to a vote. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

It doesn't need to be. It could have been deleted as spam, but I moved it to draft space to allow you to add credible sources that are more than namechecks or press releases. Your promotion of this topic is rather singular, do you have some connection with them? Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

My only connection to them is that I sometimes play it on the way to work, I live in a city where it's stationed.

The links are fine, please check them yourself and don't just trust what Koncorde said. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Maxim.il89, I did. See churnalism. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You're lucky it wasn't deleted outright as WP:PROMO. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

But it's not "promo," I on purpose didn't write one positive word about it, just technicalities and in how many places it was stationed. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

User:Maxim.il89 - You ask why Cadenza Piano wasn't put to a vote. I was about to put it to a vote, known as AFD, before it was moved to draft space a second time. If it had been sent to AFD, it might have been deleted entirely. I was also about to disagree with moving it to draft space a second time, but then I saw that you were acting like a jerk, and that violates the rule against acting like a jerk. You only have been blocked for 31 hours, which is sort of the minimum for acting like a jerk. Grow up. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

How does it feel having a brown tongue from being such a doggy to the "rules"? It's a normal request, I think the article was well reference, I think the point Koncorde made about references being invalid because of them often relying on company material is ridiculous (let alone the fact Koncorde has been stalking me, and nothing has been done about it), and I think article should've been put up to a vote, rather arbitrarily being moved to a draft.

Maybe if some admins weren't stalking editors and be on a power trip, less editors would add like jerks. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 08:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

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 ~~~~}}.   Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You are just being far too disruptive and need a time-out to think about how your conduct has resulted in a bunch of editors having to clean up after you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Seems a bit harsh! :/ He is trying to create an article on the company. However I think there is room to improve other articles like street music or Street piano. Anyway, I think it's nice to see an article on my cousins work! :/ Govvy ( talk) 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Maxim.il89, you've had several blocks over the past 10 days. It's time to face the fact that the way you are dealing with things isn't working. For one thing, you need to stop reverting other editors, even, or especially, if they've reverted your edits. See WP:BRD, after an edit is reverted, it's time to discuss the edit on the article talk page. You might also start talking to other editors you are having a conflict with, in order to understand the dispute, rather than taking it to a noticeboard.

To give you some perspective, I can't think of an editor or admin on Wikipedia that I know well that doesn't have at least one other editor that drives them crazy or rubs them the wrong way. This is typical of collaborative projects. We still must all find a way to get along. Sometimes, that means keeping your distance or ignoring some editor pushing your buttons, sometimes it involves going to the editor's user talk page and directly asking what the problem is. At times, you need to recognize that it's your own behavior that is the problem. I know there are editors here who can't stand me but you have to find a way to contribute to the project in spite of that. I know I got through a lot of early conflicts by going to the the Teahouse and asking some basic, "How do I get along with?" questions. Or just go to another editor for support or a reality check. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I understand that, but on the other hand... it's not about "getting along" - I am being stalked by Koncorde, I've complained about it, my requests weren't even looked into, they were shut down immediately. Maybe my conduct would be better if some admins weren't on a power trip, and if other admins wouldn't shut down requests to deal with it. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 08:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I want to make a couple of points:

• Nobody is out to get you. I get it that you're cross about being blocked - who wouldn't be? Liz has described my views on this pretty much spot on. This is why I ended last night's session doing a few tweaks on O'Connell Street, because I never like going to bed without having made the last WP contributions of the day on actually improving the encyclopedia.
• The discussion is not shut down; rather it's been moved here. WP:ANI is best used as a "last resort", after all other options have failed
• I'm actually more frustrated that other people have called out my actions as being "soft" and "lenient" and I should just have just site blocked you from the get-go, which I didn't believe was fair.
• I have done significant work on quite a few keyboard articles, most obviously the good article Hammond organ, and so Draft:Cadenza Piano is something I'd like to improve and get back into mainspace when I have the time to have a look.
• In the specific case of Koncorde, I honestly think he was trying to help you, and offering you suggestions that would make the articles you have worked on better. For example, his comment on Draft talk:Cadenza Piano asking about whether it's electronic or electro-mechanical was entirely about the article. You could have ignored it and let somebody else answer it, or you could have just answered the question without the personal remarks, I can't sanction anyone who makes comments on articles that contain no personal remarks whatsoever. This is functionally similar to a conversation I had the other day at Talk:Graham Chapman#Personal life where another editor questioned some of the content and narrative in the article, finding it confusing. I could have taken offence over somebody walking in off the (metaphorial) street and complaining that an article I'd spent a significant amount of time improving, but I simply answered the questions and fixed up the article so everyone was satisfied. Similarly, I've just left a comment on Koncorde's talk page as a talk page stalker answering a question asked by another editor - in this instance, the "stalking" is used humorously and just means that it's possible for anyone to answer a question left on a user talk page outside of the person it's intended for, and if answered well, it is appreciated.

I hope this all makes sense, and if you have any further questions, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I have never held a grudge on wikipedia. I have certainly never stalked anyone in over 14 years. I only react to bad editing wherever it may be and try to contribute by explaining clearly what concerns are being had (by myself, obviously) from the point of view of a neutral observer. This doesn't matter if it's the 1st time or the 90th time dealing with someone (and lord knows there are some editors that must deal with me two dozen times a week).

I have repeatedly helped new editors in achieving their editing goals, particularly those that started out with similar single topic focus that didn't understand the function of verifiability vs what they happened to find on the internet (user DaveFelmer for instance, who went through a series of flame wars, and is now a reasonable editor with a lot of passion that occasionally still gets him in trouble). I, myself, even made mistakes early on (and still do) but I made it an objective of mine to read and understand the bureaucratic elements of wikipedia to ensure my contributions stuck. Half of that battle is using wikipedia's rules to argue your position.

After 14 years I hope most editors on seeing my name, if they have any idea of my edit history, will know I am not being frivolous and that I am being genuine. Koncorde ( talk) 10:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Piano manufacturing companies of Israel 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!} 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies of Israel 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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm afraid to say that Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. supporters/GA1 has been failed. I have noticed that you have not edited in nearly a month and since it seems that you will not be able to complete the work on it I am failing it. If you return, and wish to continue working towards getting the article to GA status, please feel free to re-nominate it at WP:GAN. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 16:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The article Sunderland A.F.C. supporters you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. supporters 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 REDMAN 2019 -- REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Only 2 of the sources seem to be suitable for this article, so it fails WP:NCORP. There needs to be multiple independent, reliable source, to establish notability.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cadenza Piano and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cadenza Piano, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

— Yours, Berrely •  ^Talk∕ _Contribs 16:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sunderland A.F.C. supporters, did not appear constructive and has 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. You have been warned by numerous editors about the way that you go about editing wikipedia and treating every article as a battleground for your opinion. We follow basic concepts of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:ORIGINAL and you are repeatedly in violation of VERIFY and ORIGINAL, and express a non-neutral POV by relying on both unreliable sources to make claims, but also to make claims not supported by the source itself, or a WP:SYNTH of content based on original research. Stop. You have had a year to learn how to cite articles and are showing both no inclination to follow basic guidance. Koncorde ( talk) 23:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply

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 Sunderland A.F.C. supporters, you may be blocked from editing. You are removing reliable sources, replacing with unreliable sources, making claims not in the sources, and attempting to refute reliable sources that say otherwise. This is beyond disruptive, and again more edit warring. Koncorde ( talk) 00:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Koncorde ( talk) 00:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply

It appears there are other editors who think 'new nickname' is the best phrase to describe 'black cats'. If you will agree to tolerate that solution, my guess is that the WP:AN complaint can be closed with no action. The other options don't look good for you, and a long block is possible. Let me know if you will accept this solution. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply

"New nickname" is definitely unsuitable... however, that word has been removed, which is great. There are also a few editors who agree "new name" is misleading... so, great. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 01:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  — Wug· a·po·des​ 07:00, 19 December 2020 (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).

Maxim.il89 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I don't think my block was entirely fair. I agree I went too far with my attitude... however, when you get stalked by one user all the time, and I've brought it up before, it does get to you. Yes, I should've handled it better, and if I get unblocked, I'll work on that. However, I also feel like there is an issue on Wikipedia when an older user gets leverage to act in a disrespectful or condescending way. Again, doesn't justify my behaviour, but truth be said. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. You need to address your actions, not those of other users. Yamla ( talk) 12:10, 20 December 2020 (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).

Maxim.il89 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

OK, I agree I need to done down my behaviour, be more collaborative and less aggressive. I should've handled the situation better... I still believe I was right in WHAT I was saying, but I was totally wrong in HOW I went about it. Should've used the talk page more and more politely. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 07:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Given that this block comes after several temporary blocks and an AN discussion, you're going to need to be more precise about what was wrong with your past behavior and how you intend to avoid this behavior in the future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 21 December 2020 (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).

Maxim.il89 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I used edit wars and allowed myself to get into verbal arguments, which is obviously pointless on Wikipedia. So yep, I am willing to change. As I said, I thing I was right in WHAT I was saying, but not in HOW I went about it... edit-warring doesn't help improve anything. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 07:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:48, 31 January 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.

Max, please cease circumventing your block by editing as an IP as you did here. This is liable to see your block here become permanent. Koncorde ( talk) 04:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Really? That's how you're trying to jeopardise my appeal? That edit wasn't me. If anything, I think stating a certain player is a fan of a club he actually played for... like, obviously, he played for the club, what's the point in mentioning it. Most players are fans of the club they played for.

Newcastle legend Jackie Milburn was a Sunderland fan, now that's juicy, but I still wouldn't include that because obviously he was no longer a Sunderland fan as an adult. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 13:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the IP was editing in Israel. The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Well, whenever Koncorde appears on a talk page with an argument... so do you. I'm sure it's just a coincidence (and no, I'm not implying you two are the same one... obviously you aren't, it's just suspicious how you two appear on the same talk pages... Talk:Sunderland, discussions about me on the noticeboard, or my talk page... with a gap of less than an hour).

As I've said, don't know who made the edit, and don't really care. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 13:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Some coincidence. And yes, I literally turned up nine hours after Koncorde here (not less than an hour as you claim). I don't know, have you heard of "watchlists"? And Koncorde has {{ ping}}ed me on more than one occasion with relation to your behaviour. So I have added those affected pages to my watchlist as well as the 10,000+ I already monitor. Cheers. You're not editing from Israel by any chance, are you? No need to answer, I think it's clear. The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Is "watchlist" another word for stalking? Maxim.il89 ( talk) 13:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

No, if you aren't aware of Help:Watchlist, it makes for useful reading, in particular Watching a page means that the recent changes made to it will show up on your watchlist and Watching a page allows you to receive email notification of changes to it. If you need any help with that, or have any more questions (i.e. with your confusion over how a watchlist functions vs "stalking") don't hesitate to ask. But is "il" an abbreviation for Israel? I wonder... The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I am informing you Max so that you can acknowledge, stop and move on with your appeal otherwise anyone looking into your edit history is likely to view these as an intentional step of avoiding a block (rather than simply not understanding wikipedias rules on such blocks). These edits, in addition to the prior ones on the same page two weeks ago are from Israel. [4] [5] [6] [7]

When editing Cadenza Piano you said which neighbourhood you were in as a piano was placed there that you play on your way to work. The IP address matches, and any passing Admin can check against your user profile. In addition, the edits with the IP ceased when I called you out by name in an edit summary, and they started again after your account was blocked. WP:DUCK applies. Failing to own up now is not a good look.

Meanwhile, I have no issue with the edits themselves. They are constructive and using appropriate sourcing in the first instance. Less so with The Mirror. This is solely about your conduct. Koncorde ( talk) 14:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I currently reside in Israel, true, but Il are actually the two letters of my surname.

In any case, those IP edits weren't mine, but good to know in general I'm not allowed to edit from my IP - I didn't realise it's not allowed on Wikipedia. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 21:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

It's allowed, just not as a blocked user as that is considered WP:BLOCKEVASION. Koncorde ( talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

If that is truly your intention, to give me useful advice, than thank you and I appreciate it. Maxim.il89 ( talk) 23:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, Maxim.il89. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cadenza Piano, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, Maxim.il89. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Cadenza Piano".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! S0091 ( talk) 17:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply