User talk:Γεώργιος Τερζής 2

Welcome!

Hi Γεώργιος Τερζής 2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm P,TO 19104. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pelé, 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. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I will put them again and be sure that NOBODY CAN FIND anything more reliable. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Thanks for helping out Wikipedia! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Drat8sub. Your recent edit(s) to the page List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't experiment. Check the already reference from RSSSF. IMRE SCHLOSSER HAS 59 international appearances and 68 games. You have the source. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction : 59 goals. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have read the rsssf doc carefully and the notes provided in the article. Drat8sub (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't experiment. I can easily show you the proofs that make this list even more complicated... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's you opinion if you are experimenting or not. I assumed your edit as good faith and reverted. And when you edited second time, I had to warn you with the first level of warning. Because your edit is unhealthy for the article. This is autogenerated message. This is not punitive. And secondly, you are already addressed on wikipedia policy and guidelines, please go through these guidelines, it will help you to grow in wikipedia. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy for those who are interest to find the correct number of Schlosser's international stats. The note said about contraversial information for one game. But since you are a RSSSF member (as I read) you could know more. In any case I'm not intreasted any more for this (not that important, it's a step forward for en.wikipedia with the mistake of Nielsen) as the I have already written this list has more serious contradiction (lost in the past). Thank you. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't open thread at my talk page when already the thread is opened here. About rsssf....do you understand what did I say? Rsssf is reliable source, and rsssf is telling you clearly that its uncertain about the goalscorer of that match. It's rsssf considering the goals but not true for FA. So, if you want to put 59 you need to provide another relaible source and that source must mention why they are correct. I am again asking you please go through the wikipedia guidelines and policies, becasue wikipedia guidelines and policies are not for just editing but also for how to read wikipedia articles and accept the article. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in football statistics for three decades and the If wikipedia policies are not allowed the truth to be written it's a huge mistake of wikipedia. For Mokhtar Dahari check out the similar list of el.wikipedia which I created and you can possibly find the answers (if you understand what I wrote). Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the guidelines or not? This will be my last address to you. First go through the guidelines. "If wikipedia policies are not allowed the truth to be written", did I say that? Truth according to whom?? Because I don't see any RS like of FIFA or even HungarianFA to produce such stats. That's why I am saying your repeatedly, read the guidelines. What you are trying to convey is WP:OR. This is an encyclopedia, and the infomation here should always be verifiable by a citation. And I don't understand your last line, which list and where?? Drat8sub (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And comment here only. I will check here once I get time, no need to notify me to check your reply. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have send you a "message" in your talk page. If you understand what I wrote I can involve you in football statistics. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pelé

Please don't make personal attacks. Make your case on the article talk page and don't be so arrogant. – PeeJay 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to discuss this, you are by definition being a disruptive editor. Please stop, undo your edit and discuss it on the article talk page. – PeeJay 00:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t write to me, write on the article talk page. This is a controversial issue and I have no interest in having a one-on-one discussion about it at 1am. That being said, your attitude is appalling. Don’t be so arrogant, it won’t go down well here. – PeeJay 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't attack you personally as I don't know you. My targets are the those who want to reduce Pelé's original career, those who want to eliminate football history and the media who support them. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so aggressive? Stop it. – PeeJay 14:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

???????? Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge and opinions

Hello, Γεώργιος. I see that in this edit you explained that you "absolutely know" about the subject on which you have written, and that you are not interested in other editors' "opinions". The problem there is that other editors may not realise that you know the truth, while they merely have opinions. They may think that they know the truth, or they may think that both you and they merely have opinions, and that there is room for discussion as to how to resolve differences of opinions, or failing that to reach a compromise. My experience over the years is that editors who take the line that they know, whereas others merely have opinions, don't get very far in getting their preferred versions accepted. Unfortunately, even if those editors are 100% right in believing that they have a higher level of knowledge and understanding than anyone else involved, the fact that there is no way for them to persuade the inferior people, who don't understand that, means that they are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as just being arrogant and uncompromising, and unable or unwilling to collaborate in a collaborative project. You are, in fact, more likely to get at least part of what you know is right accepted if you act as though you respect other editors' opinions, even if you don't, and if you address them civilly, even if you think they don't deserve it. If you continue in the way you have been going (of which the edit I linked to above is just one example) not only will you antagonise other editors so that you will be unlikely to succeed in persuading them to accept you views, but also, sooner or later, you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. That is because, rightly or wrongly, aggressively opposing editors with whom you disagree and summarily dismissing their views as inherently inferior to your own is seen as arrogant, uncooperative, and disruptive. As I hope I have made clear, I am not trying to persuade you that the prevailing view on how to deal with disagreements among editors is the correct one (I doubt that I could persuade you of that even if I did try) but I am trying to persuade you that since it is the prevailing view, it is necessary to accept it and act in accordance with it if you wish to achieve any of what you believe should be done. JBW (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have to thank you for the time you spent writing to me and secondly for those you have written. They were really useful as they "touch" the problem. I will think again the way I should act in these situations. I can accept that the changes I did in the article of Pele were "severe" for the average knowledge of football fans or users. Thank you. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SO DO YOU

LOL, really? I'm not the one making quite significant changes to one of the most important football articles on Wikipedia without any hint of discussion... – PeeJay 21:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm ItsKesha. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of footballers with 500 or more goals without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested any more for this MANIPULATED LIST. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you disagree with all the reliable sources? On what basis? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RELIABLE SOURCES ARE RSSSF AND IFFHS. ONE LIST EACH NOT MIXTED STATS. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RELIABLE SOURCES

How many goals Bican scored? - RSSSF : 948 - IFFHS : 720 - FIFA : 805 = MARCA : 760 - SOME OTHERS :757, 762 (non statistical sources)

• • • Answer : RSSSF : 948

-At the highest level (UNOFFICIAL STAT, NOT RECOGNISED BY FIFA) : 720 -For those who are interested about which is the most official : FIFA : 805 NO OTHER STATS SHOULD BE INCLUDED EVEN IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LIST AS THEY MAKE MORE CONFUSUON. ***CHECK CAREFULLY THE LIST OF EL.WIKIPEDIA. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the BBC not a reliable source? What about CNN? Corriere dello Sport? Diario AS? The Guardian? The Independent? ESPN? Sky Sports? Globo Esporto? Deustche Walle? World Soccer? FourFourTwo? La Gazzetta dello Sport? L'Equipe? You're 100% right: unfortunately it IS confusing, and that's why all the prose in the lead is necessary. It is highly confusing! No one source is right in this subject, we have to provide as many viewpoints as possible, that's why I've provided sources from Brazil, Czechia, England, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, USA. As global a viewpoint as possible. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Marca, Corriero delo Sport, L'Équipe etc. are not statistical sources. The list is only statistics. Non of them deserve any mention in an encyclopaedia list of statistics. These kind of "opinions" can be put only in the respective footballers articles. As it is written know seems that e.g. Bican scored 720 goals in an UNOFFICIAL list and he is the 6th scorer of all times! But officially he is first (FIFA). How someone will understand that difference? Also, CR7 seems to be first, but FIFA hasn't recognised any career tally of him and according to RSSSF he is fourth. The previous mentioned non-statistical sources are commercial products. Wikipedia (if wants to be encyclopaedia) has to make clear what someone should consider "correct" and what not "correct for sure". L'équipe informed as that Bican has scored 805 goals according to the previous RSSSF stats and not the updated although the article was published after the RSSSF announced the new version. Is L'Équipe article reliable? NO!!! That's why I didn’t put this article in Josef Bican's biography in el.wikipedia (80 references) nor the en. wikipedia where references were needed. Usually, I know the truth before writing something as a result of my experience. I'm not informed e.g. for Diego Maradona from World Soccer. I've seen all his career since 1979. If e.g. FourFourTwo writes something which is not true, this article won't be put as a reference in el.wikipedia. FINALLY concerning stats, I have extensive knowledge, not appropriate for an encyclopaedia but for books. P. S. And answer to a non-question, Josef Bican has scored more than 948 goals. Don't be surprised..... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA isn't a statistical source either, as the article makes clear in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Bican isn't "6th scorer of all times", as A) the article isn't complete, and B) the list has no ranking. There is no "official list", because again, the main arbiter of global football doesn't produce such a list.
BBC, Deustche Welle and France 24 aren't commercial products and they all believe the 805 figure isn't true. Maybe you should write a book, but seeing as you think BBC, DW and F24 are commercial products, the rest of your knowledge is massively inaccurate too.
Here's something funny - in the el.wiki article for Bican, you include a source from Clarin (this), and yet here they say Bican's record for 759. So is this a reliable source according to you or not? I guess they aren't now!!! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was clear : two lists with RSSSF first (all official goals). Concerning FIFA, it is the highest authority of the sport. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell, what's an official goal? And now, bear in mind you need an actual source for your definition, not "bro, just trust me". Nor some random Russian bloke who may or may not have finished updating his website, and whose tally differs from that of the clubs, and the various FAs, and the players themselves. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An official goal is one that the game is scored is included in the calendar annual programme of the respective country of the game. Reference can be found in FIFA. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the Czech FA would be best placed to know what Czech games are official? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czech FA is responsible only for the games in Czechoslovakia. We are not sure about the years of Protectorate (belonged to Germany) and the Czech FA can't state anything about Bican's career. The Austrian FA is not mentioned in the announcement of 821 goals (and didn’t announce something afterwards-so the announced number is semi-official) and more of this the goals in Mitropa Cup are obviously wrong (16 in 4 games instead of 15 in 15 games-all sources except the Czech FA agree on this). Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying nobody actually knows the right answer? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and if you go here, it says he played 528 games, right (528 zápasů)? Count all the numbers below that and it comes to 518... it's almost like the Mitropa Cup listing is a typing error, and it should be 16 in 15, rather than 16 in 5 as it says. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a typical error. For the other question who does exactly knows Bican's goals, perhaps nobody and that's why statistians (RSSSF and IFFHS) know better than L'Équipe, Marca, FourFourTwo etc. and and that's why both full lists should be there. More of this, RSSSF says that Bican has +948 goals (and they are in my opinion). ALL THE REFERENCES FROM THOSE NEWSPAPERS, WEBSITES, JOURNALS, SHOULD BE REMOVED. THEY DON'T PROOVE ANYTHING AND ELIMINTATE THE QUALITY AS NUMBERS ARE... NUMBERS. I told you to check el.wikipedia list as I take care of it the last one and a half year. Only information from FIFA are there as the official highest authority of the sport. ANOTHER POINT : Do you know why IFFHS list can't be regarded fully correct? Where is Erwin Helmchen? According to strict IFFHS criteria at least 608 goals are at the highest level. IFFHS has announced the list before the detailed stats of Helmchen from RSSSF (mid March). Maybe we will see Helmchen in a (possible) next announcement of IFFHS (this was the first from them, nobody can be sure for a next one and this will be a proof were IFFHS takes information from -personally I know). RSSSF will certainly publish an updated list. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should remove sources from BBC, CNN, Corriere dello Sport, Diario AS, The Guardian, The Independent, ESPN, Sky Sports, Globo Esporto, Deustche Welle, World Soccer, FourFourTwo, La Gazzetta dello Sport, L'Equipe, Marca, The Daily Telegraph, Sports Illustrated, O Jogo, France 24, The Athletic, iDNES, CBS - that's sources from 9 countries on 3 continents - and instead rely on some Greek rando on the internet and some Russian man who updates his website once every decade and who thinks goals in the Germany Nazi league are worth talking about. The entire purpose of the text in the article details how complicated and confusing this all is, have you even read it? I think you should, because maybe then you'd stop inexplicably banging on about narrowing the use of sources and instead appreciate that there is no right or wrong answer whatsoever. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already told you, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THIS LIST and all these articles ARE ALREDY WRITTEN BY ME AND MY OPINION IS ALSO WRITTEN AND DOESN'T CHANGE. DON'T FORGET THAT ONE GOAL IS ALWAYS ONE GOAL, EVEN IN THE WORLD CUP OR IN THE FORTH DIVISION. This is a FIFA rule and THAT'S WHY THE STATS OF IFFHS WILL BE NEVER RECOGNISED BY FIFA. AND I KNOW WHERE THE TRUTH IS, FAR AWAY FROM THE "PLACES" YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.... DON'T DISTURB ME AGAIN! Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're not interested in it to too, I believe you pal. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested for correct articles. The list now is a bullshit. In order to be correct, AGAIN: - First the list of RSSSF (FIFA recognised the 805 goals of Bican according to RSSSF) - Second the list of IFFHS (goals at the highest level, this "type" of goals is against the FIFA principles). Third, delete references from media who have nothing to do with the statistics. THE ONLY THAT YOU CAN KEEP IS THE ARTICLE OF JONATHAN WILSON (SI). Two answers: The first reference of el. wikipedia you mentioned in the article of Josef Bican is since 2016 and the is used for other purposes, not for statistics. The second one is not found. I explained to you what is reliable : The article of JONATHAN WILSON about Josef Bican is reliable. The article "The 50 Greatest Footballers of All Time", also in SI is not reliable (don't ask me why, I won't answer). Nobody's perfect. Mistakes can be found in the RSSSF list, in IFFHS list, L'Équipe, FourFourTwo, everywere. I know that the truth and when I realise it, I'm trying to eliminate the result. AN OBVIOUS MISTAKE IS THE WAY THE LIST IS NOW. If it comes to the proper way, it will be different. NO OTHER WAY.

Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph five of the Wilson article you say is reliable: "That seemed to have taken him past Bican’s apparent record of 759–but others, including FIFA, have Bican on 805. And even more have come up with their own totals. The fact is, wherever you draw the line, it’s arbitrary". Not only does Wilson not know the answer of how many goals Bican has, he explains why. As does the Wikipedia article!!!!!!!!!! Read it! The article isn't "bullshit", because there is no truth, as the reliable Wilson so clearly says! Get over it, and get over yourself. Cop on. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wilson is a football expert, not a statistician. There's truth (it can't be no truth, we are taking about numbers, but as time passes we are getting closer. Statisticians say that "there is not stats that can't be improved". And I know that they are right. IFFHS claimed 470 goals for Pele in Campeonato Paulista for 27 years (1994-2021). Now they approached RSSSF (467) and they recognised 468. There is no appoitment that we are going to lose concerning Bican goals. Maybe in 2027 for example we will learn. The way Wilson wrote his article is not from a statistical point of view. In any way the greatest goalscorer is not the one with the most goals (and Jonathan Wilson knows it). But the list has to have numbers. AND THEY HAVE TO BE STATISTICALLY CORRECT. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you still not understand that there is no statistically correct answer? How are you not getting this? The article literally explains that it's basically impossible to know the right answer, Wilson has explained that's impossible to know, 9 sources in 3 countries have explained. That it's impossible. To know. The right. Answer. and yet you persist that only you and some Russian can be right. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Bican

Please keep the discussion in one place and see WP:CONSENSUS. GiantSnowman 21:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will look funny but I lost where the discussion was. I'm writing in three wikipedias the same time.... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I was clear about the discussion page: I lost where is it. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told reserve football isn't senior football and that those statistics shouldn't be included, please undo your edit. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been alread told you that reserve football was senior football at the time. DON TELL ME WHAT TO DO. THE I DON'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT. YOU ARE TOO YOUNG FOR THAT. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for too much trolling, such as here. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 14:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in writing in en.wikipedia. I have made a lot useful contributions and you don't deserve more. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm ItsKesha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of footballers with 500 or more goals have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of footballers with 500 or more goals. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of footballers with 500 or more goals. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks are not allowed in wikipedia, if you continue to personal attack other editors then you will be blocked. Chip3004 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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 ~~~~}}.  Kinu ^t/_c 01:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring is disruptive enough to warrant a block, but this is wholly unacceptable. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your block history and the personal attacks/trolling that led to your previous block, I am extending this block to an indefinite one. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and repeated personal attacks.

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 ~~~~}}.  Kinu ^t/_c 01:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are absolutely correct. I KNOW WHAT I'M WRITING VERY WELL. I also know that a lot of users have no idea what they are writing or are simply "damaged brains " but I cannot do anything for it. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Kinu ^t/_c 16:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]