User talk:Marlborozmoker

Welcome!

Hi Marlborozmoker! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the information I provided is already sourced. I just added it in the lead! :) Marlborozmoker (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Timtrent. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Björn Andrésen, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Charlie Watts, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Klose

Hi, Marlborozmoker! I noticed your edits to Miroslav Klose and I had a couple of questions. I've started a discussion on the article talk page here. Perfect4th (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

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 Justin Bieber, you may be blocked from editing. Beemer03 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked as I have been accused of being a sock-puppet, when I am not. The administrator who blocked me used several Michael Jackson articles as their...evidence. With Jackson's popularity, would it not be common for Jackson's articles to be edited so often? Marlborozmoker (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to blocked sockpuppet, Awakener4411. Yamla (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2022 (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.

Yamla How can you say that you've confirmed this? I struggle to believe that you have found a coincidence regarding edits of Jackson's article to determine that I'm a sockpuppet. I've read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and it states that, as you most likely know yourself:

"Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. (This requirement is waived if the edits in question are deleted; in this case just provide the names of the pages that the accounts have been editing.) You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. Concision is key. Evidence should be presented in a concise format. Because of the length of the backlog, cases with clear and concise explanations and evidence are handled the most quickly." Marlborozmoker (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CHECKUSER. --Yamla (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read it, how is an IP address/broadband sufficient evidence? Marlborozmoker (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The match is not just based on IP address. I will not comment further. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not acted accordingly to "You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. Concision is key. Evidence should be presented in a concise format." I do not mean to initiate some sort of argument, but you are simply being unfair. Marlborozmoker (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet, as I have already said. There has not been sufficient evidence to support that I'm a sock puppet; I supposedly have the same IP address as an account that edited Michael Jackson articles like me. This is a coincidence. Marlborozmoker (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:48, 14 May 2022 (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.