User talk:PerspicazHistorian/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PerspicazHistorian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi PerspicazHistorian. Thank you for your work on Manmath Swami. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@North8000: I appreciate your comment. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

i need your help

Hi Spider6man (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

yes? PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi PerspicazHistorian. Thank you for your work on Shivlinga Shivacharya. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARE

Please see [1]. Nxcrypto Message 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

but why? I was just improving the page. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@PerspicazHistorian:, I agree with @NXcrypto: in this case. You violated WP:BRD by engaging in an edit war. You should have discussed on the talk page even if you believed that the content you were adding was correct.LukeEmily (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @LukeEmily can you please check my edit on [2] as see if I made any mistake? I don't know why concern is being raised by @NXcrypto on this edit at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-NXcrypto-20241220031200-NXcrypto-20241219155300. Please correct me I am wrong. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I am getting attacked and tramped down to stop me from making edits that are supported by facts, but not agreed by other's POV. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Their report at AE and their edit summary reverting you explain it clearly. Your ability not to understand that is concerning. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, you all are experienced editors on wikipedia. I have learned a lot in my journey. I now understand the importance of talk page, will not make such mistakes again. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Your recent editing history at Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 okay, I apologize if it was a violation. I didn't intended for a personal attack. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Copying the source of the draft to make the article violates our policies. I will move the article back to draft. Please work on it there and, when you are ready, submit it for review. UtherSRG (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of Umbarkhind

Hi, I see you've noticed that some of this was chatbot-created. Please be very careful to check the sources you're working with as well. The editor whose draft you resurrected frequently wrote unverifiable or false content. -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have re submitted the article for review as per the rules. I will be further adding references for the content and removing unverifiable ones. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Ankur Warikoo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ankur Warikoo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Warikoo (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cutlass ^Ciera 18:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello PerspicazHistorian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

I have fixed a problem with the archiving of this page. I have also left some helpful comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Warikoo (2nd nomination). (I actually planned to vote delete, but when I went through the sources I found on a Google News search, I realised that deletion was the wrong thing to do.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Toddy1! Thanks for fixing the talk page issue. Your input to the discussion is highly appreciated. Thank You! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you know that if an article is deleted, you can ask the admin who deleted it to restore the article to draft so that you can work on it? For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Warikoo (2nd nomination) resulted in deletion. If you wanted to improve Ankur Warikoo, you could post a message on User talk:OwenX asking for it to be restored as Draft:Ankur Warikoo.

But if you do that, you need to be willing to leave it as a draft, and let it go through the review process. If you move it back from draft to mainspace it will really annoy admins.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

The advantages of signing your posts are: (a) we know who posted them, (b) we know when you posted them, and (c) ping type functions only work if you sign the posts. "@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]]" is a ping.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Toddy1, I have added signatures. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please change your statement on enforcement, I don't want to get blocked. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A p-block from article space would be a good result for you. Do you understand what that would mean?

You would be allowed to edit talk pages.
You would be allowed to edit draft articles. If you asked for Ankur Warikoo to be restored as Draft:Ankur Warikoo you could work on that.
You would prevented from editing article pages.

I think that Valereee is right in thinking that allowing you to edit draft pages would help you develop the skills you need to later edit article pages. Bishonen agrees with Valereee on this.

Once you have shown that you have done a good job on different draft articles, you can ask for the p-block from article space to be removed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024 - Prasada

Thank you for contributing to the article Prasada. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. -Ram1751 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ram1751 I agree, the whole article is copy pasted from [3]. Thanks for letting me know its unreliability. PPicazHist (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Battle of Umbarkhind has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Battle of Umbarkhind. Thanks! Jõsé^hola 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PerspicazHistorian,

Also, please set your archiving bot so that messages remain on your User talk page for at least a week or a month before they are removed. Right now, they are being archived after only a day or two so other editors have to go into the page history to see if you have had previous discussions. I understand that some editors like a "clean", empty look to their user pages but if you could just leave recently left messages posted on your user talk page, it would mean that I could have easily seen if you had already received this warning. Also, it's against policy to personally canvass editors so they will side with you in a dispute, if you have an argument, put it all on WP:AE. Thank you.

if you have questions about canvassing or noticeboards, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz, I extended it to 10 days. PPicazHist (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)).

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Umbarkhind (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by UtherSRG was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Do not resubmit without addressing the concerns raised. Repeated attempts to do so will result in the draft being rejected, not just declined.

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:Battle of Umbarkhind 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.

UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PerspicazHistorian! 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! UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

example source assessment table (copied from one done for the biography of an ice-skater)

Source assessment table prepared by User:Toddy1
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Holder, Gord (16 January 2014). "Junior titles handed out on final day of competition". The Ottawa Citizen. p. 13.	~ Significant coverage, but very limited scope	~ Partial
McNair, Brian (February 11, 2016). "Uxbridge's Mackenzie Bent and Ajax's Dmitre Razgulajevs off to junior worlds in Hungary". Uxbridge Times Journal. Durham Region. Cayley, Shawn (5 January 2012). "Durham duo impresses in ice dance. Big things in store for Mackenzie Bent and Garrett MacKeen". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com. Kelly, Brad (1 February 2013). "Uxbridge's Mackenzie Bent, Oshawa's Garrett MacKeen earn silver at nationals". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com.	All three articles discuss the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Slater, Paula (August 26, 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Golden Skate.	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Smith, Beverley (15 January 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Skate Canada.	~ Limited scope	~ Partial
"Canadian ice dancers Bent, MacKeen drop to 5th at world juniors". CBC. 17 March 2015.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

PerspicazHistorian, I suggest that you do a source assessment table at Draft talk:Battle of Umbarkhind. The comments on various sources in Draft talk:Battle of Umbarkhind are very useful. When you do the source assessment table, you should expect other people to want to modify it. Please make it clear whether you are willing to accept changes by other editors to it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toddy1 How can i do it? PPicazHist (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you see the example table? It is inside the green collapse box. That shows you what one looks like. If you edit this page you can find the code for making one. Let us try copying from the example and making one.

Heading

{{ source assess table

| user=

| startopen=Yes

For each source you need to complete the following.

| src1 =

| i1 =  | ij1 =

| r1 =  | rj1 =

| s1 =  | sj1 =

You have to put this in after the last source assessment to complete the template.

}}

You can see how to complete one from the code above. And the links in the example tell you what things mean.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional note on canvassing

I see you were already warned above regarding canvassing. That includes attempts to "pick a closer" for a discussion. When a discussion like an RM or AfD is over, it will already go into a list to be closed, and someone will pick it up and close it in due course. If it's something like an RfC which is not always formally closed, but you feel the particular discussion requires a formal close (i.e., it was particularly contentious or there's disagreement over the outcome), you can request it at the noticeboard for that purpose. Do not, however, ask specific individuals to close the discussion. Once the closure is requested, it may take some time to happen; in the meantime, you wait. Just move on to something else until someone can get to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade I agree to it, but you can also see that despite a clear consensus the discussion is not yet closed. Isn't it inefficient. I am not telling anyone to do anything, just inviting them if they think it should be closed. Usually it should be closed within a week, but even after 3 weeks its not closed. Thanks for letting me know about the noticeboard for that purpose. In future I will use that. Best. PPicazHist (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If necessary. RMs are already listed here when ready for closure, so don't post those there. If there's a backlog, you wait. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is you are asking individuals. This adds bias. Don't do that. We have a system. Let the system work. Move on to other things, knowing the system will handle it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi PerspicazHistorian. Thank you for your work on Tata Light Armored Troop Carrier. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this article! Have a blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi PerspicazHistorian. Thank you for your work on Deshmukhs of Parwa. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:AE

See the report on AE filed against you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PerspicazHistorian Dympies (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

Please reconsider my block—I am committed to making positive contributions.

What I did that got me blocked: I tried to rename a article title that's disputed and sometimes also engaged in edit wars (many times they turned out to be sockpuppets)
What I will do differently in the future if I get unblocked: I understand I was blocked for being "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia," but I genuinely wish to contribute constructively. If any of my edits were disruptive, I apologize and am willing to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will always discuss on a talk page before reverting anyone's edit and will not indulge in edit wars. I understand that my edits, including calling Taylor & Francis unreliable, making comments about living persons, using talk pages improperly, and engaging in whataboutism, were seen as violations of Wikipedia’s policies.

I acknowledge these issues and will not repeat them. I am committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines and contributing constructively. I request reconsideration of my block. Thank you.

PPicazHist (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"If any of my edits were disruptive....." tells me that you don't see how you were disruptive. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2025 (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.

February 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't even edit talk pages? PPicazHist (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Your own user talk page is the only page you can edit, and while you're blocked you may only use it to discuss what you need to do to become unblocked. Using it for anything else will likely result in you losing access to it. Please note that creating another account is wp:sockpuppetry to evade a block, is highly likely to be detected, and is very difficult to come back from. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee, What should I do to get unblocked? I was trying to do things in talk pages in order to gain access to article place and here i am blocked even from talk pages without even a discussion. PPicazHist (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because I started a discussion, I am blocked for it? We should always discuss things. PPicazHist (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I myself have helped blocking many socks, will not indulge in such things. I did not even try to edit article space when I was blocked and was just editing on talk pages. I want to be unblocked. PPicazHist (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It's also funny how @TheRajputGuy is targeted here. He might not even know he will be blocked without a discussion in near future just because he supported a move that some people don't agree with. PPicazHist (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The block notice explains how to request unblock. The section above it links to the AE discussion that brought Guerillero here. Valereee (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Valereee, I have added an unblock request. Please consider it. PPicazHist (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

No admin is going to unblock in response to that request. You clearly didn't even bother to read the advice at the guide to appealing blocks link. Valereee (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Valereee, I did read it, but wanted to keep it short. Please check my recent edit to it. Is it okay now? PPicazHist (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It will not get you unblocked.

In an unblock request, you have to explain in your own words:

What you did that got you blocked.
What you will do differently in the future if you get unblocked.

Remember, the purpose of blocks is not to punish you. It is to prevent you doing the things that got you blocked. There is a subtle difference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hint: have you thought of reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PerspicazHistorian?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hint: have you ever made productive edits? If yes, provide evidence. If the answer is yes, but not since 9 January, explain why?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Toddy1, It feels nice to communicate with you again. @Toddy1@Valereee Can you please check my modifications to unblock request. Is it okay now? PPicazHist (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Follow the two hints. And read WP:GAB. And take your time. I once heard a talk by a man called Jewell. He said that what he does is to write what he wants to say, but not send it. He then reads it again the next day, and usually ends up rewriting it. Do it the Jewell-way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Writing that Taylor & Francis is unreliable is not a breach of Wikipedia policy. But it is alarming that an editor would say such a thing. You need to work out (a) why you wrote it, and (b) why it was wrong. Then you need to figure out what you can do to stop making that kind of statement in the future.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)