User talk:Topg1985

Welcome!

Hi Topg1985! 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! Jacona (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Information icon

Hello Topg1985. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:William John Titus Bishop, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Topg1985. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Topg1985|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. You must disclose on your user page, not on the article itself' ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Topg1985, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Topg1985|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong,
As requested I have added the paid disclosure template to my User Page.
All good things. Topg1985 (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William John Titus Bishop (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
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 on the notability of people). 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:
not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER and how this differs from the deleted version?
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Topg1985! Having an article draft 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! Theroadislong (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:William John Titus Bishop has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William John Titus Bishop. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theroadislong,
Many Thanks! I have expanded and updated the article accordingly, including adding references to address these points.
All Good Things Topg1985 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many Thanks again,
I have removed the press release and further expanded the article and added references.
All good things Topg1985 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care.

Hi,

I've recently reverted a few of your edits that introduced small errors. Your edits at York Minster and Macbeth introduced errors of grammar while claiming to be improvements. Some of your removals of commas have the effect of making sentences less clear, e.g. these at "The Hay Wain", and this edit at "St Pancras Old Church", where a pair of commas were used to separate a clause, and you removed one of them. I don't doubt that your edits are made in good faith, but it might be a good idea to slow down a little and make sure that you understand the context of the sentences you're editing.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean-de-Nivelle,
I hope all is well. Thank you for your observation about my editing. I will check my edits more thoroughly in future!
All good things Topg1985 (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Same thing here though. The sentence was fine as written, but you broke the grammar. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jean-de-Nivelle, thanks again for the observations. I wouldn’t normally use a comma after brackets but I will in future. I can see how the comma is better for clarity.
All good things Topg1985 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about the brackets. If we simplify the sentence by replacing the noun unit "Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946)" (i.e. the title of a work and its translation) with "X", we get "Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work X, originally presented as a lecture." The structure implies "which was originally presented as a lecture." So adding "which was" would have been fine grammatically, though no improvement over the original sentence. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jean-de-Nivelle, I take the point completely. As there is no overall improvement in clarity I won’t add “which was” either.
All good things Topg1985 (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William John Titus Bishop (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:
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 on the notability of people). 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:
Not quite enough independent, significant coverage.
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.
WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikioriginal-9,
I hope all is well! Many thanks for reviewing the draft.
All good things. Topg1985 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William John Titus Bishop (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
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 on the notability of music-related topics). 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:
The history of the article/draft combination makes salutary reading. However I am setting that aside and treating this draft on its merits.

The references are a large issue. PR pieces and announcements are useless. they should be removed.

DISCOGS is deprecated as unreliable, as is Musixmatch. They need to go.

Any fact that you can't cite shoudl be removed. Why? For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
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.
🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William John Titus Bishop (December 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cerebellum was:
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 on the notability of people). 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.
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.
Cerebellum (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William John Titus Bishop (January 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spinster300 was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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.
Spinster300 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless repetition

You have twice now claimed on my talk page that you have been informed by a number of editors that the page is ready to be moved [1] [2] but this appears to be untrue. I'm sorry if that is harsh.

When I questioned it the first time, you replied The editors (or people claiming to be editors) approached me on sites other than Wikipedia itself, so I am afraid I cannot provide links. I thought it best to be cautious. [3] This provides no information whatsoever, and in view of this I think you should withdraw your claim rather than repeat it.

You are wasting my time and yours. Andrewa (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrew,
Sorry about that, I was just letting you know what happened in the hopes that I could improve the article and comply with the policies of Wikipedia.
It was nice talking to you. All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. There is much going on. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William John Titus Bishop

Hi Topg1985. I wanted to let you know that Draft:William John Titus Bishop has been declined for the sixth time. I am going to be blunt: in this case, the answer is "no". Bishop does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia, and there is nothing you (or Bishop) can do directly to change that. No amount of editing and no amount of polishing can fix this. The only thing that can fix this problem is independent coverage in reliable sources: nothing solicited by Bishop or on his behalf counts. Let me know if you have any questions, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseBlaster,
Thank you for your message.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William John Titus Bishop (April 21)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by HouseBlaster was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: I warned you that Bishop is not notable; because you have chosen to ignore my warning, I am rejecting this submission. I have created a source assessment of all seven sources currently in the article, and have been unable to locate anything useful outside of the article.

Note that "reject" is a different from "decline": there is no option to resubmit a rejection. If you manually resubmit, I will file a deletion request. Best,

HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HouseBlaster,
Thank you for your messages, I have taken you very seriously and added independent, reliable sources, and re-written the article to comply with all your and other editors requests. I do not wish for an edit war, but I think other editors would disagree with you.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that other editors would disagree with [me], given the article has been declined by six(!) other editors before me. We are not worried about the way the article is written: it is not overly promotional, and that is good enough for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. We are concerned with notability, which has nothing to do with the sources in the article. If there are two or three independent reliable sources which cover Bishop in detail, then he is eligible for an article. I have not been able to locate any such sources, let alone multiple. You have not presented any such sources, let alone multiple. As I said earlier, the answer is "no". Let me know if you have any questions, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HouseBlaster,
Thank you again for your thoughtful analysis. I’m sorry that you feel that way about the sources, however there are editors, including myself, who feel otherwise. I have re-drafted the article a number of times and removed a number of sources which appear in dozens of other articles to comply with your requests. I myself am convinced the topic is notable.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be difficult, and I realize that this is in good faith.

I believe you are conflating using sources to support content and using sources to support notability. A source does not need to contain significant coverage to be used to support information about Bishop, but it needs to contain significant coverage to demonstrate notability.

What are the usernames of the editors who agree the topic is notable? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseBlaster,
I would not wish to give out any names as this would potentially create conflict. The sources in the article contain significant coverage of the topic, not just passing mentions, and they are used to demonstrate notability. I would re-iterate that I am convinced the topic is notable. I thank you again for all your kind and intelligent advice on the article.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you really insist that this is a notable subject, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. I would strongly discourage you from doing so, and if you do I will nominate the article for deletion. At a deletion discussion, the wider community will weigh in and determine if the article is notable. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HouseBlaster,
Thank you again for all your help. I don’t wish to have an edit war, but you sound very angry, and concerned about whether I am taking you seriously, which is irrelevant to the draft, so I am a little concerned. I do take you very seriousely, and because of this I will continue to edit the draft but adding further independent, reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the topic.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:William John Titus Bishop

Draft:William John Titus Bishop, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William John Titus Bishop and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:William John Titus Bishop during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 02:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPE was also a possibility. Just because you have no problem with paid editing doesn't mean the community doesn't. And please do not contemplate making a new account or editing logged out. This block applies to you and your promotion of your clients and asking colleagues to edit would be Meatpuppetry. Please find another site to promote your client. Star Mississippi 02:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Star Mississippi,
I’m sorry you feel that way but I have done nothing but followed Wikipedias policies. I don’t have any clients. I haven’t asked any colleagues to edit. I don’t play with toys.
All my Love
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let the People Think

In 1941 Bertrand Russell published a Book 📕 of essays promoting freedom of thought. It’s highly recommended. Never let anyone make you feel guilty for who you are, or tell you what you can and cannot think.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly support free speech, that is not what Wikipedia is for. We are a private entity: we are not required to allow free speech on our platform. You don't get to yell in the library and complain about censorship when you are asked to leave.

More to the point, your talk page is to be used to appeal your block (we have a guide to appealing blocks), not for random comments. If you continue to make random comments (including, but not limited to, replying to this message to complain about censorship) there is a chance an administrator will revoke talk page access, at which point you will need to appeal using the unblock ticket request system. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,
I’m glad you are feeling better. I have no complaints about anyone. Freedom of speech is a human right. I think it is good advice for people who wish to edit! Here to help.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sigh... Star Mississippi, you might want to revoke TPA. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HouseBlaster,
I’m grateful for all the attention from so many people, I know editors are very busy. What is TPA?
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That, right there, is the problem. We don't want to spend our attention on you. We would rather be writing encyclopedia articles on notable subjects. We are not a playground for you to write about whatever you think is notable.

TPA stands for talk page access. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,
Then why, with all due respect, do you keep posting on my talk page? You’ve been messaging me for days now. Please stop arguing with me, it must take a lot of energy, and continue your good work.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were assigned as my mentee through the growth team features (your "homepage" tab). I would rather be the person who answers your questions/deals with the articles you write/etc. than force someone else to do that. This will be my last reply, barring extraordinary circumstances. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HouseBlaster,
Thank you for your time. Best of luck with all your editing in the future.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2024 (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).

Topg1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

What's the misunderstanding? Are you the same user as User:Armaghan Muawiyah? – Muboshgu (talk Hi Muboshgu, no I am not. I think that might be the misunderstanding. All my Love, TopG1985) 17:54, 27 April 2024 (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.

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).

Topg1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Even if you are not a sockpuppet of Armaghan Muawiyah, this unblock request cannot be approved because you have not addressed the reason for your block and what would be different if you are unblocked. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and follow that if you submit another unblock request. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2024 (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.

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).

Topg1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the reason for the block was disruptive editing. I will not edit disruptively in future.Topg1985 (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

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).

Topg1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason given was that the account is a sock puppet account. It is not a sockpuppet account. I do not know who the named person is in the discussion.Topg1985 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A connection is not in doubt. If you have a plausible explanation for this, please offer it. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2024 (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.

Sock Puppets

@Yamla,

I hope all is well. This account is not a sock puppet account. The CheckUser is incorrect. I do not know who the user named in the sockpuppet investigation is I’m afraid.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll excuse me if I don't believe you. --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yamla,
Thank you for the message. Unfortunately it is the case that I have no connection to the named sock puppet in the discussion you are referring to. Why would I lie about something like that?
Thinking about it, a person could conceivably create two accounts at the same IP address and edit the same page badly from both accounts.
In any case, I have no connection to any of these people.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2024 (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).

Topg1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The original reason for the block was disruptive editing. There is no further disruptive editing on my accounts. A totally unrelated by nonetheless important issue has arisen about an account I have never heard of. I have dealt with that in a separate talk page comment. editingTopg1985 (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:00, 28 April 2024 (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.

Sock Puppet Issues - If you don’t believe me now then you’ll never believe me.

Hi @331dot,

I hope all is well.

I’m sorry that you feel that way, and we could argue all day, but I wish to continue improving Wikipedia.

Again, I’m sure he/she/they is a lovely person but I have not had any connection with them.

If we think a little further, IP addresses are used by lots of different people, and we can’t read their minds.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You're not addressing the issue, you just keep badgering, which is not helping. Talk page access is a privilege, and it can be taken away. Use it wisely while you still have it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @DoubleGrazing
I don’t know who you are, but your handle keeps popping up on my talk page. I hope all is well. So far I have been blocked for disruptive editing and sock puppet issues. I don’t edit disruptively and this is not a sockpuppet account. I have addresses both issues. What exactly do you want to know?
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]