User talk:Juleskoundes

Speedy deletion nomination of Manorial lordship of Masons

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Manorial lordship of Masons, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. Fram (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Feudal earldom of Errol

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Feudal earldom of Errol, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. Fram (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added the Edinburgh Gazette entry to prove David Willien's ownership of the earldom.

I admit that the Count of Vergado and Lordship of Masons may be hoaxes, but about the Earldom of Northumbria, my edit has a proper citation, particularly from the London Gazette, so I see no reason that edit needs to be reverted. Juleskoundes (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Count of Vergado

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Count of Vergado, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. Fram (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Black appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand what I have done. I'm truly sorry for anything that I've caused on Wikipedia. I didn't mean to vandalize or create hoaxes, I just want to contribute. About the feudal earldom of Errol I believe that it is something that shouldn't be marked as hoaxes. I even included Lord Lyon's notice, so I'd hope it'll be reinstated. Juleskoundes (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I can't figure out how one doesn't mean to vandalize or create hoaxes. Both those activities require several deliberate decisions; it's like saying "I didn't mean to rob the bank". In any event, you're probably going to need to describe a specific edit you would make to the encyclopedia if unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

@331dot: Apart from some articles that were supposed for sandboxes/drafts, most of my edits (not new creations) have proper citations, and so far only 1 was reverted for vandalism (which is a misinterpretation implied by a user). Juleskoundes (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Second appeal

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry if my edits annoy some of the users on Wikipedia. While there are some articles that were supposed for sandboxes/drafts and I published them as main articles (which is the main reason that I was blocked) I believe that I have made some useful edits and really hope to be able to contribute again. Juleskoundes (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm sorry if my edits annoy some of the users on Wikipedia. While there are some articles that were supposed for sandboxes/drafts and I published them as main articles (which is the main reason that I was blocked) I believe that I have made some useful edits and really hope to be able to contribute again. [[User:Juleskoundes|Juleskoundes]] ([[User talk:Juleskoundes#top|talk]]) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm sorry if my edits annoy some of the users on Wikipedia. While there are some articles that were supposed for sandboxes/drafts and I published them as main articles (which is the main reason that I was blocked) I believe that I have made some useful edits and really hope to be able to contribute again. [[User:Juleskoundes|Juleskoundes]] ([[User talk:Juleskoundes#top|talk]]) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm sorry if my edits annoy some of the users on Wikipedia. While there are some articles that were supposed for sandboxes/drafts and I published them as main articles (which is the main reason that I was blocked) I believe that I have made some useful edits and really hope to be able to contribute again. [[User:Juleskoundes|Juleskoundes]] ([[User talk:Juleskoundes#top|talk]]) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Juleskoundes (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)