User talk:Mooresklm2016

Hello there!

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! Ofus (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AFD behaviour. Thank you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meritt North, Meritt North, and Meritt North (voice actress)) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been disruptive here despite multiple warnings and have such lost access.

Since you have weighed in extensively, you have made your case. If and when considering an unblock, include your plan to make any WP:COI & WP:PAID disclosures that are necessary. Star Mississippi 13:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Star. I added all additional cites >20 that proved the audiobook narrator portion and despite me trying to work to make the article better with Bearcat's help, he seems to be blatantly ignoring my cites and case. Even in the best practices on Wikipedia's article specifically regarding page deletion and how to handle disputes and resolutions it says you should always try to work to make the article better first by adding citations if there are any that are missing or suggesting that rather than just blatantly immediately flagging the whole entire page for deletion Mooresklm2016 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to review primary v. secondary sources. Your sourcing showed that the books existed, not the level of depth required for notability which is the point @Bearcat and Jéské Couriano were making. We know North works as an actor and author, but that's not sufficient for an article to exist. Star Mississippi 15:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The audiobooks she's credited as narrating have been reviewed, documented, displayed, on sale, available with 20+ citations that are not user generated, are completly independant 3rd party publications within the audiobook industry. As far as her authorship goes, she did provide citations to where those articles can be viewed as published. These Publications served as the most highest credible Publications in the industry of sleep medicine so it was therefore even more notable for her to get published in those Publications because they are such leading authorities in sleep medicine. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately absolutely none of that meets notability, which is what folks were trying to make clear.

well known group of radical anarchists on Wikipedia that get off on bursting peoples bubbles and quick to cast something for deletion, continuing down that vein will have your block extended. Please be mindful of that and I would suggest leaving editing about her to those unconnected with her work. Star Mississippi 16:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry you dont like that label, but you know it exists. It seems what comes natural to me is to try to remedy things, make them better. It seems like a knee jerk reaction i see all too often. In one or two cites, they might be unlikeable but the career and contribution cant be undermined for no good reason. This subject meets all of the criteria including all of the sites and references and has her audiobooks they have been reviewed and they do have a seller's ranking Etc and they are in the mainstream markets because they have been published by the top audiobook production companies in the world. So...some civility and reasoning here would go a long way.

Scorpio Mooresklm2016 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the restriction you placed on me here. Apparently the situation has been misconstrued or we've had a great misunderstanding but I am trying to serve Wikipedia's purpose and be true to myself and what I believe the right thing to do is and what's good and what's fair and what's just especially based categorically on the information from Wikipedia's guidelines and policies which I have tested so unless you can prove otherwise this deletion request needs to be modified it needs to go back up without restriction and you need to leave this poor girl alone.

Mercy!

scorpio Mooresklm2016 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== Notability threshold met for audiobook narration. Review cites ==

Met Mooresklm2016 (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore access.

Kindest Wishes,

K. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to request an unblock, nor proven it's necessary. An unblock will not happen without those. You will not be unblocked to further promote NOrth. Star Mississippi 17:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo this block as soon as possible. I have faith that if you read my contributions you will see that I'm simply trying to do the right thing here and I have quoted Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions on how to request an unblock. In order to be potentially allowed to edit about North, you will need to make all necessary declarations. You are free to edit literally anything else, why are you choosing not to? Star Mississippi 16:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because, I'm standing on my principles here I've seen you guys do this to too many pages. And it's not right . Editor should have a certain mindset and goal in mind and that should be to improve and populate the widespread use of information for educational purposes and for the best benefits of World Knowledge so I don't know what other complaints you have about this particular subject but her audiobooks are undeniably proven so you can't say that she's not an audiobook narrator therefore you also can't take away the term actress because she's a voice actress as she is an audiobook narrator . But she has biographies written by third party audiobook production company companies she is listed as a voice Talent on seven different agencies websites and all of her sleep medicine articles were published in peer-reviewed journals which is an acceptable form of a notoriety type publication accepted for academic subjects stated in Wikipedia's rules and guidelines on notoriety and also with links to all of the other Publications whether they were in magazines newspaper journals or online websites . But this is really unethical if you guys are trying to delete her page over a few things that could be improved or changed

Scorpio Mooresklm2016 (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of knowledge for a new account. Standing on principles won't get you unblocked and the community will decide whether North has an article. If your sole goal is to promote her career, that will be best done elsewhere. That is not what Wikipedia is for Star Mississippi 17:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well that's alot of shade. I do extensive research on the activities I'm involved in. I am standing on principles because I'm invested in doing what's right and acting cordially to try to remedy disputes in a respectable manner is healthy and we all learn from it and become better. I'm not specifically interested in this subject's career, promoting it or otherwise. I am merely pointing out an injustice when I see it and trying to help the situation. This subject's published articles, newspapers, industry standard notable and academic in nature. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption here is that anything published in predatory journals is useless for notability, for the same reason we won't cite books published by vanity presses (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those aren't predatory journals or a less than reputable, only one company in the world does what they do and that's Repec.oorg and this is an integrated body of literature from the top scientists and experts in their field and her articles are indeed part of this database of scientifically proven articles and literature material on RePec. So, you guys aren't even trying to be fair. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RePec is specifically economics-focused. The research papers in question are on human health. Care to mulligan? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A few things that could be improved or changed"? None of your sources help for notability. If we found any usable sources, the article would need to be ripped out at the roots and rewritten wholesale based on what those sources explicitly say. It would be far easier, and take far less time, to delete the article and start again from scratch rather than try to heavily edit it in situ. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the suggestion and advice, Jeske. But as far as I can see there's only a few minor things that could be deleted and a few minor more citations that could be added for more accuracy so I think being able to edit the article would be a much simpler process . Can we please request the protections to be removed so that the necessary changes can be made ? Mooresklm2016 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to request an unblock and an uninvolved administrator will judge whether that has merit. Continuing the back and forth here does not achieve your goals and your unwillingness to do so does not show your benefit to a collaborative project Star Mississippi 17:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not as simple a thing as you're trying to convince yourself it is. Again, none of your sources are usable, meaning if reliable sources are found, the article would need to be ripped apart and rewritten based on those sources. This is not a matter of "tweak <foo>, expand <bar>"; this is a matter of complying with one of our stricter sourcing requirements and we will not budge on this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well I'm hearing what all of you are saying and you have some points and I have some points too. But maybe instead of all this talking you could go ahead and remove my block for me so that I can make some of these changes you guys are requesting I'm more than happy to do the work Mooresklm2016 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're blithely ignoring what we're trying to tell you, you have a history of trying to remove the AfD template and filibustering the AfD itself, are refusing to use {{unblock}}, and you seem to have no clue of the amount of work that would need to be done to get this article to an acceptable standard, the likelihood of an admin unblocking you is slim to nil. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry you feel that way but I kindly disagree with many of the things you're saying. And I wasn't blocking anything as far as I'm aware I haven't blocked anything so I'm not sure what you're mentioning that I will refuse to unblock. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To request a block, you must use the {{unblock}} template. That's what you've been told repeatedly. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again cutting me down making assumptions telling me I have no clue what type of time it would take whenever I have written articles throughout my life and riding is my greatest Talent I could rewrite this article with the correct citations and have everyone be happy with it and under an hour Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your other articles prove otherwise. Please either make a proper unblock request, or move on to another topic. YOu are being disruptive beyond the limits admins are willing to tolerate. Star Mississippi 18:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been disruptive, ive been involved much like you. I have not cut anyone down here made assumptions about anyone or called anyone names and you have repeatedly been negative and toxic towards me and continue to be . I have copied the format for the unblocking request but I do not know where to submit this. it says to put it at the top or bottom of the article in question, however that is being blocked and protected from being edited at the moment.

Advise?

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I've been astoundingly courteous and respectful and nice to you even after you have in every single message to me been negative and hostile I have still shown you the grace of dignity and respect and you should show me the same but I suppose that is a life skill that not everybody learns Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe instead of all this talking you could go ahead and remove my block for me

Make an unblock and it will be considered. You refuse to do even that minimum, why should we unblock you. That said, for it to have a chance, you need to show your conduct that led to it has changed, and you've done anything but. Star Mississippi 18:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you giving me a 2nd chance Star. I assure you that I don't have an attitude I'm coming from a good place I'm not upset at anyone I don't hold grudges I'm very easy to get along with but I love words articles and anything pertaining to writing especially encyclopedic type information and I'm also very passionate about it when I believe in something with all my mind I have to stand up for it because I'm all about doing what's right in any given situation. But I am also autistic and we tend to come off very black and white and rigid in our thinking. So it could be that tone coming out but I'm perfectly happy on my end to collaborate and do something good here. Kindly unblock me.

Scorpio Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And...the #1. Rule in Wikipedia's Deletion Protocols, it first and boldly states that a deletion request should be used as a last ditch and all people should first pool thier knowledge talent, team playing attitude, with a spirit of wanting to do your best and you try to remedy it first. I get it. Yall are a bit jaded because you're always on the hunt for this. But the greater benefit is for society, wisdom, and history keeping. Subject's who more than meet the criteria for their body of work should be honored.

And we are equipped with a level of authority that shouldn't be abused.

Ive merely shared my logical policy based refutations to your apparent motivation to delete the article altogether without even attempting editing, group discussion, trying to improve the article.

And I've gotta say, you've thrown shade at me, you've questioned my experience when you have no idea about my history and background. You have made akot of assumptions.

No wonder you seem bound and forward to crumple up and throw this thing in the trash without attempting resolution first.

I think you need to reevaluate what Wikipedia editors are supposed to stand for and what it's all about.

It's clear based on your attitude so far, you're not here with good intentions.

Now I've been very nice and very patient as you guys are working overtime to delete the article.

I've shared and quoted Wikipedias policies and guidelines to be helpful and proactive about corrections required.

Am i crazy, or should we be working hand in hand to do better and make a dufference for society with the absolute preeminent that is Wikipedia and the grratlest platforn of knowledge and the most famous encyclopedia in a millenia. So, yea we should be working together to help each other and make wikipedia better not worse.

Scorpio Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple other editors have been unable to find the sources needed to support notability. Without those, there's nothing to improve and nothing to support that there should be an article at all. Schazjmd (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you would be so kind as to remove the protection I could make the necessary edits and we would all be happy Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to make edit requests on the Talk Page. That's the way forward for editors with a conflict of interest. You have shown no ability to edit collaboratively and the request for removal was already declined (cc @Favonian). Star Mississippi 18:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given administrators any reason to believe the issues will not recur, despite your claim below that you've learnt your lesson. Not to mention you've been told repeatedly to use {{unblock}} yet you refuse to do so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did it I figured it out Jesse. Forgive me for not knowing how to do something for the first time when I've never been blocked before Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're acting like creating an article is a Monumental feat it's really not you find the independent third party citations you cite them and you only document what you can prove. It doesn't take long it's easy to do the research I've been begging you all to unblock me and take the protections off the page for the last 10 minutes so I can start doing some of the things you guys are bitching about Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an edit request at the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting an unblock, as that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what you I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be considered unless you follow the instructions on how to do so. Rather than casting aspersions, please request an unblock and make your cast. Hint, repeating what you have said is not going to get the result you're looking for. Star Mississippi 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We may have different opinions about this but you have been negative rude unprofessional abusive and it's not right. If you can't be respectful to me don't say anything to me at all and if you can't work like an adult here with people who have varying perspectives and opinions maybe you're in the wrong place Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling you're going to be sure to make it to where I specifically don't get what I aim as you have been adversarial from the start and I haven't once treated you with disrespect or unkindness . I have added the unblock request where the direction said to add it and I have kindly and repeatedly asked you guys to unblock it since you have the authority. I'm really trying to help here and if you would just let me work on it we wouldn't be going through so much conflict and you could come back and check it several hours later and I think it would be to your satisfaction Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, for heaven's sake, read and follow the instructions in the block notice, and make a formal unblock request. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Gee, Im sorry. No one's ever been a negative toxic enough person to block me but I guess there's a first time for everything Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "done" until you replace Your reason here down below in the unblock request with your statement on why you should be unblocked. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, all of you guys need to work on your team approach, reevaluate your purpose at Wikipedia, and be kinder and show some Grace try to help where you, try to avoid troubles, or try to fix problems. I just thought those were life lessons we learned in kindergarten and that everyone continued to know Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you're doing yourself any good here, you're not. I just deleted another article of yours that was full of both promotion and cut and paste copyright violations, and honestly I'm inclined to just block you entirely. You have danced around the question of COI and paid editing, so your next edit needs to be a direct yes or no answer to the questions: Are you being paid or otherwise compensated to edit Wikipedia? If not, are you closely connected to the subjects you are writing about? If your next edit is not a direct and clear answer to those questions, I will indefinitely block you altogether. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their response if you're not watching @Seraphimblade was another unblock request in the wrong place and after @PhilKnight actioned these. Star Mississippi 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as promised, you are now blocked sitewide indefinitely. You may want to review the guide to appealing blocks before making any further appeals. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution vs Deletion

Thank you for your feedback Star. I added all additional cites >20 that proved the audiobook narrator portion and despite me trying to work to make the article better with Bearcat's help, he seems to be blatantly ignoring my cites and case. Even in the best practices on Wikipedia's article specifically regarding page deletion and how to handle disputes and resolutions it says you should always try to work to make the article better first by adding citations if there are any that are missing or suggesting that rather than just blatantly immediately flagging the whole entire page for deletion Mooresklm2016 (talk) 10:21 am, Today (UTC−5) Mooresklm2016 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability threshold met for audiobook narration. Review cites

Met Mooresklm2016 (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mooresklm2016. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Meritt North, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Providing guidance per your post to the article talk page in which you appear to claim to be the subject of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Randy Brooks (gospel musician)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Randy Brooks (gospel musician), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.hcnews.com/stories/down-from-the-cross,15962, https://www.cdbabylicensing.com/track/NzU2NjMzMC01MDBjYTA, and https://www.evangelmagazine.com/2017/09/took-song-behind-prison-walls/}. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Star Mississippi 18:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling generous

they posted the below to my Talk. Transferring here, and suggest a reviewing admin have a hard look at their contributions when considering the request and assessment as a miscommunication. Star Mississippi 18:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

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).

Mooresklm2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The issue no longer exists. It was a major miscommuniation. Mooresklm2016 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your conduct was poor, and you need to accept this. I don't see any reason for you to post in the Article for Deletion discussion - we can wait until it closes. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 27 May 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.

Hello, Mooresklm2016,

I've never run into a blocked editor who had so much trouble figuring out how to post a simple unblock request. It's all right there in the block notice what you are supposed to do. Above all, you should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before filing another unblock request. It tells you exactly what to do. But if you repeatedly make long talk page arguments protesting your innocence, your talk page access is likely to be revoked. Just follow the rules, reflect on your behavior, what led to this block and think about the article later. You have a lot of editors who came to your talk page, trying to give you advice and you ignored them all, insisting you were right. That's not an attitude that will get you unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention

You are placing malformed unblock templates on Star Mississippi's talk page. The correct place for your properly formatted unblock request is right here on your talk page, not anywhere else. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi has moved them them here, but you are supposed to replace "your reason here" with your actual reason. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Ofus per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ofus. 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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 18:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]