User talk:Buger677

your draft and related comments

I reverted your edit to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council per WP:NOTAFORUM because that's not the place to ask for help with Draft:Corruption in the United Arab Emirates. Regarding that draft, it's not an article. We would need you to read everything on that subject, write a narrative of at least a few sentences discussing it, and provide a bunch of citations to reliable sources to show the topic is notable. Generally speaking, new editors should not attempt to write new articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for your feedback. Hoping I can be the exception to that rule and perhaps offer a decent read with plenty of notable sources and helpful information on the topic. Sorry about posting that discussion in the wrong place. My mistake. Thanks. Buger677 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Fish talk page

Wanted to recommend that you add a small bit of formatting to your suggestion - just add a blank line between the original text, the word 'to', and then before the new text. As it is now it looks like one run-on duplicated section. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I'll do that right now. thanks. Buger677 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Jacobkennedy per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobkennedy. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: The investigation isn't even over. How can you block me per "evidence" at the sockpuppet investigation. I should get fair treatment. How am I am able to defend myself against claims if I have editing revoked beforehand the investigation should be fair and allow me to defend myself. Wait until the results, please unblock me until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buger677 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in filing that SPI case was to request a CheckUser to have a look for additional accounts not to confirm that you are Jacobkennedy. The intersection between your edits and the other accounts and IP linked to Jacobkennedy are strong enough to justify a block without additional technical evidence that could be provided by a CheckUser. You are free to appeal the block using the details in the block notice if you would like another administrator to look at the evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What intersection are you referring to? I see no resemblance of anything. Buger677 (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's start with what was in the SPI case, why, just after becoming autoconfirmed, did you make this series of edits? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had 10 edits, not the 8 minimum before I made those edits. The timing was a coincidence at worst, and was in reality just timing that is unfortunate. Buger677 (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtoD: please revert yourself for now. I have been blocked as a "sock" without proof and before a usercheck even occurred. Also, please advise this seems very unfair to block and revert me before the investigation even finished. Thank you. Buger677 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]