User talk:Breryl

Carol (film)

Instead of risking WP:EDITWAR in an article that passed a strenuous Good Article review, please discuss your reason for insisting on changing the content of the Filming section in its Talk page. Wikipedia editing is all about consensus. Thanks! Pyxis Solitary talk 06:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello, Breryl. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 4 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have carefully reviewed the reasons behind the block (by user Bbb23, for sock puppetry - Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leibnizcreation). This is a mistake, I only own this one account. Bbb23 is confident several accounts in group 3 belong to the same person (me??!?) which is absolutely untrue (well, I don't know, maybe the remaining accounts, but this one is mine and I have no others). Please let's try to understand what led Bbb23 to make this mistake and what went wrong where, it is for the good of Wikipedia. I value this website enormously and I am always open to learning how to improve my contributions. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Sorry to be the bearer of ill-tidings. This is a WP:checkuser block, so the likelihood of unblocking is low. The latest development is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Breryl. It looks like what led to the SPI was concerns about undisclosed WP:PAID editing. Before even considering an unblock, I would need to see that issue addressed as well. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you, I have reviewed the second reason for my block. Is there anything I can do to show that I am (was) not getting paid to edit? If not, I would like some advice if possible on what to do next. I apologise about using the unblock function but it seems I cannot contact admins otherwise. 1) If it's not possible to demonstrate that I only own this account (the checkuser made a mistake) and I was not getting paid to edit, is there any way that I can edit again in the future? I assume creating another account is not a good idea if you already suspect I was owning multiple accounts. Is there anything I can do, or will I be unable to edit forever? 2) I am available to serve as a case for the developers of Checkuser if they want to understand the glitches in the algorithm and the kind of false positives it returns. Other than this I'm afraid there's nothing I can do and unless you give me some advice I will probably have to make peace with the fact that I'll never be able to edit again :( Breryl (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a CheckUser block, so you'll need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#CheckUser blocks: contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org and ask them to review the block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2018 (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.