User talk:Kamtal75

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change of the article "Persecution of Chinese Indians"

Hi Mr Kamtal, Can you please provide your view on the discussion Talk:Persecution of Chinese Indians # Requested move 4 April 2020? I think the name should be Internment of Chinese-Indians, similar to what mentioned in Internment of Japanese Americans, an incident happened during WWII. --Methu1 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOPV in 2020 Delhi riots

Hi Kamtal75, I don't know if I'm right; but, I believe that this article (2020 Delhi riots) violates some WP:NOPV. We are having a talk in Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#NOPV_of_the_article. Suggest me if I'm going in the right direction. I'm not sure if you have expertise in this type of article. If possible provide you view on this or guide me if I'm wrong.--Methu1 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hi Kamtal75! I noticed that you marked an edit as minor at Battle of Luding Bridge that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful marking edits as minor. I look at numerous edits you had marked as minor, which were not really minor edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you may be blocked from editing. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, I'm Politicsfan4. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Harry S. Truman have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, I'm Firefangledfeathers. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Charles Hoskinson, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously tried to support my claims with citations to public records, but I believe that you removed them stating that government records cannot be used in this fashion. Kamtal75 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kamtal75, hope you're doing well. Did you get a chance to read WP:BLPPRIVACY? We shouldn't be using voter registration records to make points about where people live, and it doesn't improve if we leave it unsourced. If there are reliable, secondary sources that say Hoskinson lied about his residence, then we might have reason to include that in his article. Hope this explanation helps. Happy to answer follow-up questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In that case, would you accept these secondary sources as authoritative in the sense that they only mention Charles being in Longmont instead of in Boulder?

https://cardanofaq.com/books/people-of-cardano/page/who-is-charles-hoskinson

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cardano-charles-hoskinson-soul-hell-075733274.html Kamtal75 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither looks particularly reliable. Both say he had an office in Longmont, and the first mentions a ranch there. Neither is usable to claim that he's been misleading about his residence. Putting together different sources together to make a claim that isn't made explicitly by a source is inappropriate synthesis, a kind of original research, which we avoid here. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving

Regarding your edits to this article: Do not change the wording of a direct quote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beyond My Ken. When I made the change, I hadn't noticed that it was a direct quote. Sorry about that. Kamtal75 (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created two accounts, FckyouRoxy and FckyouRoxyandMissSmith, specifically to harass another editor. I seriously contemplated blocking you indefinitely but mustered as much good faith as I could that this is a one time occurance that will never be repeated. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 14 July 2023 (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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

??? Kamtal75 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2023 (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.

I think that I might have been blocked by mistake

It was not a mistake. Two accounts were created on your device to harass an individual with whom you had previous conflicts regarding possessive 's'.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof of this? If so, I can only imagine that my account was hacked.

Checkusers can see the technical data regarding your account. It would be extremely unusual for someone to hack your account to specifically target an editor you are in a dispute with.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may indeed be the case, as I believe that I am not currently in a dispute with any editor

Disruption on William Davis (cardiologist)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like quite an escalation for me trying to stop disruptive editing on Davis's page... Kamtal75 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted by 4 different users, your claim that you are trying to stop disruptive editing is false. You have been at this since December 2022, you are not improving the William Davis article. You have also been creating accounts to attack other users [1], [2] and using different IPs to evade your block [3], [4]. As I explained on the talk-page [5] your tedious editing is not productive on this article. In total your behaviour has been disruptive and problematic, and looks like blatant trolling. I believe you should be indef blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite an assertion. I have been trying to improve the Davis page, and I think that others might agree. Kamtal75 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish supported following MOS, for example Kamtal75 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish has not edited the William Davis article [6], nor the talk-page and I doubt they would be supportive of your attack accounts against Roxy the Dog or your sock-puppeting. Sadly you are not interested in being truthful here and you are playing games. I have reported your account at ANI and will not waste any more of my time engaging you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is your prerogative. I would just say that improving Wikipedia should be emphasized over personal attacks/accusations. Kamtal75 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly consider lifting the block on my account?

I feel that my edits have basically been constructive, and I have tried to apply MOS consistently. In fact, shortly after I was blocked, I received thanks by editor Teblick for a recent edit I made. Kamtal75 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I don't think that it is fair to characterize my account as one "used primarily for disruption" WP:DE Kamtal75 (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2023 (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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Made basically constructive, good faith edits to Wikipedia Kamtal75 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but creating User:FckyouRoxyandMissSmith and User:FckyouRoxy for the purpose of carrying on an edit war about apostrophes and possessives is deliberately disruptive, nasty, uncivil, and unworthy of Wikipedia participation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:14, 31 July 2023 (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.

Kamtal75 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2023 (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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not sure what to say about creation of accounts, but I don't think that it is fair to characterize mine as one "used primarily for disruption" WP:DE. I should add that good faith edits I made to the Davis page have now (finally) been upheld by other editors. I should also add that I think an indefinite block seems excessively harsh, especially after already being blocked for two weeks.

Decline reason:

When you know what to say about the creation of the other accounts, but not before, you are free to make an unblock request. I suggest no sooner than six months from now, under WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2023 (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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just submitted a block appeal request through UTRS, but was told that I should post this request on my talk page instead.

"Why should you be unblocked? I believe that, although my editing style might be unorthodox, my edits on Wikipedia have been constructive overall and have helped the project. Therefore, I think that using the argument of WP:NOTHERE to block my account is not accurate/reasonable. Furthermore, user Psychologist Guy in particular has distorted what I have written and reversed chronologies to portray me as "very deceptive" (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kamtal75, specifically paragraph featuring the expression "shifted gears"). This user has also used generalities such as "matching writing style" and leaving "reply" in edit summaries to accuse me of sockpuppetry—the second of which was called into question by admin jpgordon. I should add that the claim of my edits on the William Davis page being disruptive also does not seem accurate, as I was not vandalizing the page but rather applying MOS (albeit very strictly) to improve it."

Decline reason:

You still do not discuss your abusive creation of accounts. You aren't blocked for vandalism, but for disruptive editing. I would question as to if you have the requisite skills and attitude needed to participate here. Since you seem to think that you were being helpful and constructive when you were not, there are no grounds to remove the block. I second the suggestion from Yamla above that you not attempt another request for six months- as you are quickly running out of chances. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2023 (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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I actually did discuss the account creation allegations in this previous unblock request. I am not sure that I understand how waiting six months to submit another unblock request would necessarily help anyone (perhaps something that is easy to say when your account isn't blocked!). As for whether my edits overall have been constructive, I think that it is clear that they are. I suppose that someone could make assumptions about my faith/attitude, but the fact is that my edits have by and large been accepted and are the standard on most pages I have edited—even the Davis page.

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address the concern which caused the editor to be blocked, which is the repeated inserting of information to the Davis article. It does not matter if the overall sum of your edits was good or bad, but rather if the block prevents disruption, which it does because it stops you from editing the Davis article. It does not matter if the edits were eventually accepted because you caused a large amount of disruption with these edits. In future unblock requests, please describe:

What is a edit war (WP:EW)
Why it is disruptive to create multiple accounts in order to continue an edit war.
What should you do instead if an editor reverts your edit (WP:BRD) Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2023 (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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Z1720 thanks for your response. I am further appealing this block on my account since, from my perspective, I was improving the Davis page rather than disrupting it/continuing an "edit war."

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query Me!} 14:47, 12 August 2023 (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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Further appealing this harsh, unnecessary, and vindictive block that has been imposed upon my account for eight months. Placing this request now to adhere to the suggestions/threats made by Yamla and 331dot. Kamtal75 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 10:34, 30 March 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.

Note Highly likely block evasion via WP:LOUTSOCK back in February. This user is therefore not eligible under WP:SO at this time. --Yamla (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any views from admins who don't have a vested, personal interest in maintaining this block?

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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reactivating my block appeal request because I believe that it was not given due consideration. There was virtually no discussion or debate and only a (now deleted) ad hominem attack. I have no recollection of making a Wikipedia edit "back in February," and, even if that were the case, that would have occurred well after six months since the block was imposed, and shouldn't invalidate the "Standard Offer." Kamtal75 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I find no sincerity in the request and deliberate obtuseness in the discussion below. Neither whether or not you recall making an attack or when it fell removes it from existence, and arguing technicalities gives me no confidence the behavior won't resume. I'd advocate productively editing elsewhere for some months and building a track record before appealing again. Star Mississippi 01:46, 23 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.

How can I edit "elsewhere for some months" and build "a track record before appealing again" when I am blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamtal75 (talk • contribs)

Your block only applies to en.wikipedia, not to other projects. --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a dismissive and insincere suggestion. What other language do you suggest I master to edit projects besides en.Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamtal75 (talk • contribs)

It definitely doesn't need to be a wikimedia project. Any wiki would suffice. If you insist on a wikimedia project and if English is your only language (I don't mean to be dismissive, it's the only language I can converse in), there's Wikimedia Commons and there's simple.wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, this reinforces my impression that many of the admins above have an attitude of "kicking the can down the road" to avoid lifting the capricious block on my account that has dragged on for ten months now: "Oh, just wait some more months before appealing again. Work on other projects. Show more sincerity" etc.

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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see above

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:55, 19 June 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).

Kamtal75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is true that admins did not respond to my latest appeal request within a two-week period (it actually took two months). But besides that, I cannot agree with much of the response to my latest request, and I am not sure how to "substantially reword" my request.

With regard to the first bullet point in the "Decline Reason" about the necessity of the block, I maintain that it has been both harsh and unnecessary since its imposition, and I feel that Wikipedia has incurred more damage than benefit over the last year since I have not been able to make contributions to the English Wiki during that time.

With regard to the second bullet point, even if this block was "necessary," I have made substantial efforts to learn foreign languages in order to make useful contributions to Wikipedias on which I have not been blocked (e.g., de.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia). Furthermore, I have (patiently, but begrudgingly) endured this block on my account for almost a year now. How many more hoops do I need to jump through for it to be lifted (see my final paragraph response to the declined unblock request in March/April)?

I think that I have been treated very poorly compared to other blocked users, as evidenced by the use of assumptions/technicalities to avoid granting me the "Standard Offer." Also, perhaps I could get a more fair evaluation of my case by an admin (or group of admins) besides Yamla?

Decline reason:

You act like you're the victim here when you've created sock puppets to attack other people. Besides that, the common thread here is that someone tells you to do something and links to a relevant page that describes it. Your effort to follow these instructions ends up merely showing more difficulty in understanding and following the instructions. I really don't think we're going to make any further progress here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:25, 26 July 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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Sock-puppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamtal75. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to defend myself against these accusations on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamtal75 due to the block on my account. Kamtal75 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously false. You have demonstrated you are able to edit this talk page, for example, and could defend yourself here. I'll warn you, though, further attempts to deceive us may result in you being banned, not just blocked; see WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't false. I can't edit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamtal75, which is what Psychologist Guy suggested I do. Kamtal75 (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla said you "could defend yourself here", and I bolded "here", meaning on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kamtal75 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]