User talk:Adelbeighou

Hi Adelbeighou! 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

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Adelbeighou! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Daniele Santarelli instead.

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 for sports persons and athletes). 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:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that the appropriate notability criterion is satisfied. In particular, this draft does not appear to indicate that WP:NSPORT is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NSPORT for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniele Santarelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This site is useless dump and I'm done wasting my time here. Adelbeighou (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Daniele Santarelli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

No such user (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess all this monkey business isn't useless after all. Adelbeighou (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit of the medal table of the article concerning the Latvian women's team winning bronze in 2019. Why is that, since it is confirmed by data in the Results section? Ivario (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake. Adelbeighou (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring and political POV-pushing in Balkan articles. MSport1005 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Albania at the Olympics) for Albania at the Olympics.

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Toadspike [Talk] 12:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

For the record, this qualifies as an arbitration enforcement action under WP:CT/EE. Toadspike [Talk] 12:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Indefinite partial block? Kinda harsh, don't you think? I tried to have a discussion with anonymous contributor (as other admin suggested) who disagreed with me but all I got were insults and racist stereotypes, both in edit summaries , , , , , , , and on talk page of article I'm blocked from. That same user insulted me on other pages as well like my talk page. After that futile discussion I made another revert and got blocked. If this ban is lifted I have no plans of touching that page again when it comes to editing. In future when I meet such uncooperative opposition I won't be wasting time on them. Adelbeighou (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you have no intention of editing the article at issue, there's no need to seek removal of this partial block. In any event, this is an Arbitration Enforcement action, which means no admin can unilaterally remove the block. You must appeal this to WP:AE or WP:ANI for community discussion, should you change your mind. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2026 (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.

I love Wikipedia and everything about it! It's PERFECT and INFALLIBLE and MORE! Adelbeighou (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can you please stop with your repeated reverting of the section about Hena's personal life which states that she's in a relationship with Aleksandar Nikolov? The matter has been recently backed by numerous articles in both Serbian and Bulgarian media which you can find online, and one of which I added as an additional reference on her page. Additionally, Hena's recent posts from Ljubljana, Slovenia with Nikolov on her TikTok Stories, where Bulgarian national team was playing on the same day she was there, furthermore add to the fact that the two of them are in a relationship. Thanks in advance. Aleksandra011 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, could you please stop with your fanshipping? Thank you. I don't know if you noticed this but on pages about volleyball players editors add who the players are married to not who they are in relationship with. It is irrelevant, not important. The "numerous articles in both Serbian and Bulgarian media" are one article in Bulgarian media which claims it has "inside info" and another in Serbian who probably copy pasted your Wikipedia edits into article. Hena's posts, TikTok or other, are not reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. Adelbeighou (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe you can accept the fact that the girl is in a relationship and stop with your nonsensical editing? "Hena's posts, TikTok or other, are not reliable sources per Wikipedia standards" so the posts made by the girl who the article is about are not relevant? Not to mention that at first you complained about a single source, and when the second one was added you say "dating life is irelevant". Aleksandra011 (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Allow me to dumb it down for you even more. Both of your sources are bad (it's a hearsay at best and "inside info") AND it's irrelevant who is she dating now. Yes, her posts especially about personal life are not reliable sources. You should learn how to add or use sources here on Wikipedia before you start editing. Adelbeighou (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe you should and will accept the fact that she is dating Nikolov, despite your obvious reluctance to do so. Many public persons (sports people, actos, musicians, etc.) have in their personal sections of their pages infos about their dating histories, if those dating histories are made public, which in Hena's case - it is. So you will have to accept that her personal life section will be, among other things, filled with that info too. Aleksandra011 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see pages about other volleyball players that have info about their dating life. It is irrelevant and your sources are bad. Adelbeighou (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not interested in other volleyball players. I am a Serbian, covering Serbian players, and just like many other celebrities and public persons that have their relationships/marriages included in ther personal life sections, I did the same with Hena's. Sources are credible and multiple, I don't care if you personally consider them "bad" - that's your problem. Aleksandra011 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)