BLDM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This account is not a sockpuppet of Kkm010. I wasn't able to find an SPI for my account, so I'm not quite sure what evidence was used in applying this block. I don't see any immediate overlap in our editing patterns. Additionally, that user does not appear to be a native English speaker whereas it should be obvious that I am. Finally, the IPs associated with my account should all be university-based and in the same geographic area - I doubt there's any overlap there. BLDM (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
The evidence I used to connect you to Kkm010 was behavioral (the edit-warring, overlap on Economy of India, India, etc.) Though this doesn't appear to be your first account, I'll unblock anyway given the differing locations. Sro23 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated attempts to link to a sham lawsuit filed against this individual, even after said legal action was dismissed, demonstrate your strong conflict of interest against Ms. Wheeler. Matters that never see trial and which are brought by mentally disturbed plaintiffs by means of unprofessional law firms are not noteworthy in someone's professional biography. I do not know if you have even read the "lawsuit" or not. It makes mention of ridiculous allegations regarding sex with multiple company executives, data deleted from a corporate work endpoint which would have naturally been backed up by a company, and other claims that have no basis in fact. Because of how clearly the claims in the suit are impossible to have been based on anything that is possible, let alone provable, it is clear that this suit was filed by individuals with no chance of winning and that they did so only with the aim of damaging Ms. Wheeler's professional reputation. As such, it does not meet the standard of being noteworthy or factually valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TisiphoneFury (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert of Moxy on User talk:Moxy has been reverted. He can remove whatever he likes from his page, and you don't get to restore it. I see you cheerfully remove other people's comments from your own page,[2] which you are free to do. So is Moxy. Please don't edit his page again, but take your concerns to article talk. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hi there! I'm INeedSupport! I noticed you undid three edits in a row. There is an easier way to revert all of those edits, and it only involves one undo! It's called Twinkle, and you can find out more information at WP:TWINKLE. Cheers! INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 01:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Mdriscoll03. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edittoA719 road— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at that, we CAN work together. :-) Go team! Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you reverted my edit to the above page. I find your mention of "consensus" somewhat frustrating, given you don't seem to have contributed to the discussion mentioned in the edit summary we were having about that very issue, where I believe a consensus was developing. I'd appreciate if you could at least chime in with your views. ~fl 23:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Hello, BLDM! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AvalerionV 17:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Could you please contact the Arbitration Committee via email at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org? Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked you should review the guide to appealing blocks then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-en ![]() Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list. |
Mkdw talk 01:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]