User talk:Iteeter

May 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Country data Athens

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m using full names on certain templates. It’s not original research. Iteeter (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop doing it, please. You have been asked by multiple people. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DrKay. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! DrKay (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Template:Current heirs of monarchies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Sweden, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disrupting templates

Please stop converting navbox templates to use full names when they have been using last names for a long time. See WP:CONSENSUS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've just reverted the addition of personal names to Template:Commonwealth heads of government and Template:Current G7 Leaders. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP. 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.
Please see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Stop changing these templates to match your personal preference. Further disruption of this nature is likely to lead to loss of editing privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I’m really sorry. I’ll never do it again. Iteeter (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have an entire page of warnings that you ignored. Please read through them, including all of the links, in order to ensure the same issues don't arise once the block expires. This should take you about the same amount of time as the length of this block, and I see no reason to lift it early. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were asked several times not to change surnames to full names on templates, but you've continued to do so: e.g. [1]. It is disruptive to continue with a series of edits after being asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been re-blocked. I warned you above about removing valid red links but you have continued to do so.[2] It is disruptive to continue with a series of edits after being asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DANNEBROG

THE. SWALLOWTAIL. FLAG. IS. NOT. THE. OFFICIAL. FLAG. OF. DENMARK.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m deeply sorry for using it. Iteeter (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to stop editing templates

As soon as your block expired, you were back to your old tricks, making bad edits to navbox templates (there are more, but it is tedious to link to all of them). I think it's time for you to stop editing templates, lest you end up with a permanent block. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this one (removing a valid red link) is what got you blocked before. WTF? Pinging DrKay. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2022 (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 ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn’t know better. I’m sorry and I’ll never do it again. Iteeter (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 21:22, 14 June 2022 (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.

That's what you said last time, and the moment you were unblocked, you continued your pattern of disruptive edits. How can it be possible that you did not know better? Did you fail to read your own talk page? What has changed this time? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand guidelines now, PLEASE unblock me!! Iteeter (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Yamla (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am 1,000% sure that I learned my lesson. I will make helpful edits. Iteeter (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since your only response is to give general platitudes that tell us nothing, I am declining your request and removing talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS for further Appeals should you be prepared to give specifics. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2022 (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.