User talk:John Pappas

August 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia! Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent uploads did not appear to be constructive and has been or soon will be deleted. Please read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247 I don’t edit or contribute a lot but I’m not new and I consider cleaning up some words and facts of my credits constructive. wikipedia suggests that What’s Happening Now doesn’t exist and that’s not true. it’s the second version of the sit-com What’s Happening and I attempted to correct that truth but was unable to do so. I also couldn’t upload a new photo of myself. a photo I own I took the shot and I was finally got approved that the upload was successful but it wasn’t. sorry for not being that knowledgable about updating but it’s difficult for me. I’m not a techie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Pappas (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are incredibly ridiculous. I will never use Wikipedia again. My credits are valid and you deleted my article due to one of your administrators pettiness. An administrator who calls himself Eagles 24/7 (what's up Eagles 4Ever was already taken? I spoke with another administrator whose name I do not recall! and I tried to contact him several times by replying to his email because I couldn't get to his talk page or whatever. I needed help instead I was removed. I'm an actor and a playwright and my page is relevant. You are wrong to delete it I did nothing to deserve this bullshit! I disagree with how my article was deleted I believe your editors or administrators back one another in their decisions. what? naming my parents is too autobiographical for wikipedia? I didn't make anything up or add anything inappropriate. I find your people completely useless as far as helping me resolve what ever they thought was questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Pappas (talk • contribs) 20:32, August 22, 2020 (UTC)

the last thing I read is one of you administrators stating that you've spent a lot of time explaining to me the situation. and it I still don't get it that's on me. I don't see it that way. I will get my info elsewhere from now on.

Speedy deletion nomination of WP:Articles for deletion/Totally TV (2nd nomination)

A tag has been placed on WP:Articles for deletion/Totally TV (2nd nomination) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G6

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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.

(So to be clear, you created a page to nominate an article called Totally TV for deletion, and I'm in turn nominating that nomination page for deletion. I'm a little confused, because the Totally TV article hasn't existed for months, so there's no need for a discussion. If there's any way I can help you do what you were trying to do, let me know.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

explain to me why this block has no expiration date. explain why some football fan can delete my page and a person in baltimore can say "clearly biographical" or whatever he said. I totally disagree with your administrators reasons. some high school newspaper article on a football coach with quotes from a high school student has more relevance than criticism from legitimate news paper theatre reviews of my work? I question this! there's no reason for me to be blocked I've done nothing to deserve it. (John Pappas (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

John Pappas, Not sure whether or not this is aimed at me... But you can, as it says below, appeal the block by adding {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of this page, obviously replacing "Your reason here" with the reason why you think you should be unblocked. Unless you use that exact method nobody who isn't "watching" this page will see the appeal; I only happened to notice this by chance, because I added the page to my watchlist when we were conversing on here, and forgot to remove it. (I have no power to review any block appeals in any format, not being an administrator.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, John Pappas. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page John Pappas, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Meters (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm going to say this again. #1, I have nothing to do with totally TV nomination 2 #2, I don't know what that is and I'm not connected to whatever it is. all I can say is this, if I made an error in my contributing to my article it was a mistake and can be remedied. to delete my article I find harsh and I was ambushed by one of your administrators with the suggestion of someone else with my name replacing my article with a person with my name bing used since the administrator has a connection with that person, football. that seems like conflict of interest to me. I have no one to which I am connected to who I'm trying to promote in any way and I am certainly not attempting to profit or advertise anything or anyone including my self. I was merely clarifying a few things regarding my credits. For example, I bracketed a couple tv shows that were noted as non existing. also your administrator stated that two newspaper links only mentioned me when in fact they were full on reviews of two of my plays, "Increments Of Three" and "Tribe Of Judah." That's not a "mention" as if to say I was merely in the cast, the articles were reviews of my plays and my writing and directing. thank you, John Pappas — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Pappas (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the first bit is in response to my message? All I can say is that your account (re-)made that page: see the log here. Looks like it was just a mistake, and the erroneous page has been deleted; no harm done. :-)

While I'm here, just to clear something up: as far as I can tell, Eagles247 doesn't want to replace the article about you with an article about the sportsperson John Pappas; as a long-standing editor, they'd know that they could simply create that article somewhere else (say, under the title John Pappas (football player)) and potentially request to move it here. Deleting an article to replace it with one that doesn't exist isn't a thing that's done. I think confusion may have arisen from the deletion discussion, where Eagles247 said The previous AFD for John Pappas was for a separate individual, an American football player. My understanding is that that was simply a statement of fact, not of intent. But correct me if you're referring to some other conversation. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 18:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left the COI notice because your username is "John Pappas",you have extensively edited the article John Pappas, and you state that you are John Pappas and have an article [1]. That's as clear a WP:COI as can be. It had nothing to do with the other article.

And the discussion of references said that they were passing mentions of you, John Pappas. They are reviews of plays in which you were involved. They are not sources about you. It does not matter if you were a writer or director in the productions. Those refs would only be useful in showing the notability of the plays. The article has zero independent reliable sources about John Pappas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were wrong and eagles 24/7 had a definite reason and possibly a personal reason as well. I don't know all the rules of wikipedia. I barely can get in here to make a comment. my article was listed for over 4 years and because I made a few contributions mostly to make sure the tv shows listed were noted and not marked "no page exists" or however it was stated. I believe I deserve an opportunity to correct any errors or mistakes I may have accidentally made and not deletion. I have not done anything involving copyright infringement or misinformation. John Pappas — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Pappas (talk • contribs) 21:18, August 22, 2020 (UTC)

The article about you was deleted on notability grounds. It was not deleted because you have a conflict of interest and were contributing to the article, or because of errors in the article. The AFD was clear on that.

Calling user:Eagles247 "incredibly ridiculous" and petty, and suggesting that they had some ulterior motive here is verging on a person attack (see WP:NPA). And saying that "editors or administrators back one another in their decisions" and that we are "completely useless" is not appropriate either. We spent quite a bit of time explaining to you what the issues were. If you still don't understand I'm afraid that's on you. Your ranting isn't going to change anything, and I'm certainly not going to spend any more time on this. Meters (talk) 01:04, 23 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.--Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EverybodyWiki

Mr Pappas, are you aware that your article has been picked up by the EverybodyWiki? You can find it here: https://en.everybodywiki.com/John_Pappas. Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Mr. Malcolmx15 you can't be serious. I appreciate your input but en. everybody wiki it seems should be Anybodywiki since anyone can write anything about anybody in there.[reply]

Mr. Pappas, I appreciate your frustration and confusion, but your comment about EverybodyWiki illustrates the points that previous editors have been trying make to you, namely, that Wikipedia is taken seriously because it has standards, standards that were applied to you.
My parents were actors, so I understand the desire for visibility, but Wikipedia does not exist to be a tool for self-promotion, like IMDb, otherwise every person with a page about themselves would just register and edit it to their liking. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people do not write their own entries in encyclopedias, which is why we trust them. —Matuko (talk) 00:05, 19 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here John Pappas (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to replace "Your reason here" with an actual reason that we should unblock you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:06, 5 October 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.