Πούμα

about super cup

https://www.epo.gr/sites/default/files/file-content-card/2026-01/poines_super%20cup_telikos%20_2024_2025.docs%20-%20Copy.pdf

https://www.epo.gr/el/arthra/antamoma-se-super-cup-ystera-apo-39-hronia Πούμα (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at 2026 Greek Super Cup, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. JoBo Gamer 11:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This page should be deleted as another one with the correct content already exists. Πούμα (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair point, ill mark for deltion, MB

JoBoGamer has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

JoBo Gamer 11:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much Πούμα (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@JoBoGamer The article 2025 Greek Super Cup has wrong title and the correct title is 2026 Greek Super Cup per WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:CRITERIA and by the examples of 2026 Supercopa de España and 2025–26 Supercoppa Italiana. The 2025 Greek Super Cup should be the one to be deleted and its history to merge with 2026 Greek Super Cup. Thank you! BEN917 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You are truly incredible! Instead of fixing the mess you created, you persist in it. Πούμα (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The mess was created by you when you blanked articles. BEN917 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

i did think so, i suggest we just move the 2025 to 2026 since its the most up to date anyway. JoBo Gamer 14:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Wrong. Don't do it Πούμα (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@JoBoGamerI agree. I will not intervene with the names untill a decision is made. BEN917 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

page has already been moved btw JoBo Gamer 09:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. But it has to be 2025. See another reference.

https://www.worldfootball.net/competition/co1428/records-winners-list/ Πούμα (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Handling disagreements

I see that you have been involved in a disagreement about the naming of an article about a sports event. You have taken part in talk page discussion, which is good; thank you for that. However, you need to rethink how you handle such discussions, because you have at times been less civil than you could have been. The most extreme cases of this that I've seen have been an accusation that another editor is lying, and an edit summary saying, amongst other things, "You're nothing", but even apart from those examples, the tone of your comments has often been belligerent rather than collaborative. Wikipedia policy is that we treat one another civilly, no matter how strongly we disagree with one another; please bear that in mind in the future. JBW (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Forgive me, I really went crazy. I have a source here in Greek that proves I'm right. The other user is kidding. Maybe that's what made me nervous. . https://www.gazzetta.gr/football/super-cup-elladas/2503591/olympiakos-ofi-i-proistoria-sto-super-cup Πούμα (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Spike 'em (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. I already replied there. Πούμα (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Final warning: Violations of WP:CIVL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA

Per this discussion on WP:AN/I, you have repeatedly violated our policies at Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, our guideline at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and our core pillar at WP:5P4. You are required to abide by these. They are not optional, nor can they be explained away by the behavior of other people. Your insistence on violating them, most lately by calling your fellow editors "childish", is completely unacceptable. This is a final warning. If you are incapable of complying with these policies and guidelines, then you are not compatible with this community. If you violate them again, you will be blocked. Please feel free to ask questions about these policies and guidelines. Continuing as you have been is not an option. Further, please be aware the casting aspersions at your fellow editors here does nothing to help your argument. In fact, it does rather the opposite and is more a reflection on you then the person whom you are attempting to target. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I already replied to ANI Πούμα (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft I would consider this comment a breach of the above warning. Spike 'em (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Spike 'em I am not violating any warning nor did I mention anyone by name. On the contrary, it is obvious that you fervently desire my extermination because I have now proven conclusively how wrong you were and how you do not contribute constructively to Wikipedia. hw. ignorance is wrong as is selfishness.--Πούμα (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because of your persistent incivility and personal attacks. In its context, it is difficult to see your comment above to Spike 'em as anything other than a deliberate attempt to make sure that you would be blocked.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Indefinitely! Why? Was my sin so great that you punished me so harshly? I recognize that I spoke rudely, but I did not curse or say anything so bad to anyone that I should be banned forever. If I spoke harshly, but without swearing, it was because for 2 months some users prevented me from correcting the article with false excuses and playing with words, without offering anything substantial. It seems that reliable sources and correct arguments do not count for you, but acquaintances and friendships between you. I believe that it was premeditated for you to ban me, to silence me and to cover up the mistakes and vandalism of some of your friends. I am not referring to you personally. I believe that the crime against me was planned by many. I could have been punished for a few days, for a week. But not indefinitely! It doesn't matter. Be well! Πούμα (talk) 19:08, 28 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request that my punishment be annulled as excessively severe and disproportionate to my offense. Indeed, I sometimes spoke ironically because I was provoked. I shouldn't have. Ok. Now I have been punished indefinitely because I said: Because many users write without knowing and ignoring the basics of an organization, namely what purpose it was established for, I am quoting here the source from the UEFA website that clarifies things and This is for those who don't know to learn and for those who are searching and can't find to see... Is this a reason for an indefinite ban? I think not. Punishment is punitive and vindictive. The sentence must be proportionate to the offense otherwise it is unjust. I hope my request will be examined with responsibility and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Πούμα (talk • contribs)

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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:20, 28 February 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.

Please note that while "indefinite" and "infinite" (or forever) may seem the same, indefinite blocks are in place until the user can prove that unblocking them would not cause further disruption to the encyclopedia. I've seen indefinite blocks lifted in as little as 24 hours. You will need to explain why what you have done is disruptive and what you will do differently in the future. Given the numerous warnings on your talk page, becoming unblocked might be more challenging as you've proven you are unlikely to change based on feedback. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade (she/her) What I did was that I spoke ironically several times to two users who were preventing me from editing an article. This has been going on for two months. I always opened a dialogue with arguments and reliable sources. Nothing from their side. Only words to distract the discussion. When they realized that I was right, they set out to irritate me and bring me here. His egoism was hurt and they did everything to block me. And they easily achieved it, just as you easily rejected my request. My behavior is stable and of course it will not change. I am sincere, honest, cooperative and I do not allow anyone to make fun of me. I do not swear, however. I speak like Winston Churchill. Be well. Those who are confident in their knowledge and their morals do not compromise. Fear hypocrites and flatterers. Not me. Also remember "E pur si muove".--Πούμα (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade (she/her) I know. I shouldn't talk about others, but about my behavior. But these others called on you to punish me and you did it immediately. They vandalize the articles, they don't know the issues and they resort to you as soon as they can't get by. I don't bother with them or even see them. They are unreliable users and spies. Obviously you find such people useful.--Πούμα (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they're doing wrong, they have enough evidence in the ANI thread to prove that you have been incivil toward other users, which you continue to do here. I have no history in this topic and do not know the background. However, based on your responses here alone, I can say that you are making personal attacks and being incivil toward other editors, which is not conducive to collaboration. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade (she/her) What you say is true. But I publicly apologized to them and instead of accepting it, at the first opportunity, in an impersonal comment of mine, they asked for my blocking again. And you blocked me. Yes, I should be punished, but proportionately. Not because I stole a chicken to sentence me to death! It is a great injustice.--Πούμα (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not block you. I declined your current unblock request. You are free to create another one for someone else to review. Further, you are not being sentenced to death. You are currently blocked from editing so as to not cause disruption to the encyclopedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade (she/her) I know you didn't block me. But I don't think I have any hope anymore with what I told you. No one will help me anymore. Goodbye and thank you for your time.--Πούμα (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Πούμα, the fact that you refer to people as having "selfishness", "set[ting] out to irritate [you]", having "egoism", being "unreliable", and "spies" along with the fact you said your "behavior is stable and of course it will not change" cements the reality that you are incompatible with this community. This isn't about anyone else. I warned you above that justifying your actions cannot be explained away by the behavior of other people. Yet, here you are doing precisely that. Regardless, you are under the misapprehension that you are banned forever. You are not. You are blocked indefinitely until such time as you can convince an administrator who reviews an unblock request that you recognize why you were blocked, and what you will do to prevent your serious incivility and personal attacks from happening again. So far, your defense has been that this block is "unjust", while claiming you spoke "ironically". No, you didn't. You've been routinely attacking people, questioning their motives, and violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:5P4. Post your block, and post your denied unblock appeal, you are continuing to attack people. So, I'll give you another final warning in that regard; You have an opportunity to make an unblock request that addresses your poor behavior and how you intend to prevent it from happening in the future (and hopefully do so in a convincing way), doing so without trying to justify your behavior as due to the actions of others, and doing so without issuing further violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:5P4. If you fail to do that, your talk page privileges will be revoked. It's your choice. Insulting other people is not the way forward. As I expressed above, your insults are entirely a reflection on you; you're essentially insulting yourself. It does nothing to help you and everything to hurt you. This block is your fault not someone else's. Either your behavior WILL change (despite your claims that it won't) or you will have your talk page privileges removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft You try to console me, but in reality, you were all happy about my blocking. Nor do you ever intend to unblock me. You want to humiliate me just to feel great and dominant. When they were undoing my documented edits because they said they didn't know, you didn't react. When they were mocking me, you didn't react. When they were secretly collaborating with each other (apparently via email) and supporting each other (canvassing), you didn't react. When they were violating the 3-repost rule, nothing. But as soon as they asked you to lock the article, you immediately locked it. As soon as you were asked personally to punish me, I was immediately punished (by another administrator, of course). As soon as I made an unblock request, it was rejected in a minute. Do whatever you want. I didn't insult anyone, I didn't vandalize the articles. Everyone disagrees and sometimes raises their voices. Scientists, politicians, lawyers, athletes, coaches, etc. But they don't sentence them to life. You don't apply any policies. You are essentially a closed club that only accepts someone new if they have servile behavior and praise His Majesty.--Πούμα (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't insult anyone utter nonsense. You were advised / warned on multiple occasions to tone down your behaviour, but you continue to belittle other editors. I tried giving you a chance to edit collaboratively, but it took just a few days after the final warning above for you to revert back to your mocking behaviour. You have conjured up a grand conspiracy against you, when all that happened was a couple of editors disagreed with you. Spike 'em (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Spike 'em You never forgave me. You have the acquaintances here and you managed to block me forever. I congratulate you. Know that I don't hold any grudge against you. I wish you good health and that you forgive people. I understood that you had no intention of forgiving me and that's why I didn't try to change. I wish you the best and I apologize again.--Πούμα (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk page access

Well, I don't know whether you actually believe all the nonsense you have been posting about other people's motives, or are just trolling. My guess is that the former is more likely, but it doesn't really matter which it is, because either way you clearly have no intention whatsoever of making an unblock request, which is the purpose for which you still have access to editing this page; therefore there's no useful purpose to be served by keeping that access. Also, you have been using that access to continue precisely the thing for which you are blocked. For those two reasons, I have removed your access to editing this page. If at any time in the future you change your mind, and decide you would like to start contributing to Wikipedia in a collaborative spirit, you may consider the unblock ticket request system. JBW (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)