User talk:Singleton4321

Welcome Singleton4321!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,297,323 users!

Hello, Singleton4321. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't vandalize

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Singleton4321/sandbox (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Singleton4321/sandbox.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Singleton4321/sandbox

Hello Singleton4321. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Singleton4321/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Oliver James (psychologist), 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! 331dot (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hi Singleton4321! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Oliver James (psychologist) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Oliver James, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this advice. Is one or both of you a Wikipedia Editor? I am going to take the trouble to try and understand how wikipedia works as the entries currently are wilfully and maliciously misleading. If I offer a fully referenced alternative, is there a way for it to be considered, or does it have to be put forward by a third party? One outrageous example of the present deliberate smearing of me is the claim that I am not registered at the Bowlby Centre or as a chartered psychologist. The reference for the Bowlby Centre is to therapists there who want to be contacted by clients, it is not a list of who is registered at the Centre. I am listed now as a therapist at the Centre: https://thebowlbycentre.org.uk/locator/ Re the Chartered Psychologist link, it is to the HCPC website, one at which I am not registered. Whoever put this link there will have known perfectly well that I am not registered there. In fact, it is with the UKCP, you can find me on their website https://psychotherapy.my.site.com/DirectoryApi__Directory?autonumber=SD-00000003&site=a0d24000001VW3nAAG

I remain mystified by how Wikipedia works: how can it permit these wilfully misleading links to encourage the reader to suspect that a practicing clinician is a fraud. I suspect a lawyer would regard this as a serious offence?

Another example is the account given of my television career. It picks on a few of the many programmes I made, I am not quite sure why it picks those ones. The truth is these are the programmes which I produced, assistant produced or presented, 1982-2003: Under Fives (ITV, 1982), The Man Who Shot John Lennon (ITV, 1988), Men On Violence (ITV, 1988), 2 series of Room 113 for Network 7 (C4, 1987/8), The Last Day (C4, 1990), Wot U Lookin At? (BBC Horizon, 1992), Prisoner 4235 (BBC 40 Minutes, 1992), Rape (BBC 40 Minutes, 1992), Prozac Diary (BBC Late Show, 1995), The Chair (BBC2, 1997), Britain on the Couch (C4 series 1998), Affairs of the Heart (C4 2000), Through The Eyes of the Child (ITV This Morning, 2 series, 2002-3). I can provide links to many of these whole programmes on youtube. So why does the creator of my misleading wikipedia choose to delete all these and replace them with some of my least significant ones? Also, why is there nothing about my journalism? I wrote columns for nearly all the national newspapers. eg I did columns for both the Guardian and Observer, as well as numerous features and opinion pieces (see https://www.theguardian.com/profile/oliverjames), in all about 250 pieces: why were references to these and the columns I did for the Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Express, Independent and Financial Times all deleted? It would not be hard to substantiate these. If you are an editor, can I suggest that you do whatever you do to stop whoever is doing this to my entry and let me offer you an alternative? Oliver James Singleton4321 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321, if you have any source(s) that support the claim that Oliver James is a Chartered Psychologist with the BPS and/or is registered with the Bowlby Centre, you may wish to present it at Talk:Oliver James (psychologist), so that the article might be corrected. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Oliver James (psychologist), you may be blocked from editing. R0paire-wiki (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why you think it gives that impression. I merely pointed out that some might think it a basis for legal action. 86.9.131.66 (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when you post. You can't use the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to influence a discussion. We want to work with you to address any errors or inaccuracies in the article about you, but this must be done in the proper manner. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321, there is a template at the top of this Talk page that reads "This user is new to Wikipedia." But I see that you welcomed here over 10 years ago, on 18 February 2014. In the past 10 years, I wonder have you yet had the time to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read any of the numerous places to which you and 331dot have referred me. I will be doing so, however. Are you an editor here? 86.9.131.66 (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have referred to you in only a very few places;~~ I can't reply for 331dot. It should be obvious to you, from all those edits (and indeed this one) that I am an editor here. You are also an editor here. But it's unclear why you are editing while not logged into your account as Singleton4321. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote 'the numerous places to which you and 331dot have referred me', meaning places on wikipedia, such as vandalism etc. I do not understand how you can have interpreted me to have meant references to me by what i wrote - I did not write 'referred TO me', just 'referred me'. Quite often you seem to misunderstand my communications to you, I wonder why that is? Have you written any of the misleading original wikipedia entries which I am now having to correct? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can check in the article history to see exactly which edits I have made to the Oliver James article. I was intending to expend some effort in improving the accuracy of that article. But given the nature of your responses over the past few days, I'm not sure can really be bothered. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could confirm here when you have read "any of the numerous places" to which 331dot and I have referred you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321, you have commented at Talk:Oliver James (psychologist) as follows: "I do have other things to do with my time than trying to correct your vandalism. When and if I get enough time, don't worry, the case will be made and I hope it leads to your being banned as an editor." I maintain that your continued accusations of "vandalism" at that article are wholly unfounded. And I kindly request again that you withdraw such accusations. Perhaps 331dot could offer a third party opinion on this, before we progress to a report at WP:AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Please assume good faith. Even incorrect information is not "vandalism" if it's done in good faith. You need actual evidence for a claim of acting in bad faith. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove maintainance tags that other editors have placed in good faith. Those maintenance tags are there to tell other editors that there is work needed on that particular part of Wikipedia and removing them disrupts the general flow of work around here. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. See wp:or 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Oliver James (psychologist). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Just a friendly reminder that removing maintenance templates will not be tolerated here. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_James_(psychologist). Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! I am deeply troubled by the ways in which you've interacted with the other editors here. Try to assume good faith in your interactions on here. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GDX420. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Oliver James (psychologist) 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 or the Help desk. Please do not remove ostensibly reliably sourced information from the encyclopaedia like you did [here] 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_James_(psychologist) can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. I can't find the warning template for legal threats so this one will have to do. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oliver James (psychologist). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I am growing tired of having to warn you on your talk page about your disruptive editing and behavior every five minutes. Someone will take you to WP:ANI if you continue with this flagrant disregard for our code of conduct. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence [1]. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Do not attempt to canvass opinion like you did here. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321, looking at your edit history I see that you opened your account at Wikipedia 10 years ago. You made 10 edits to 4 different articles and then made 2 edits to Affluenza and 4 edits to Oliver James (psychologist). In May 2022 you made 8 edits, to Oliver James (psychologist) and at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Since returning to editing, in September this year, all of your edits have been associated with the Oliver James article. It seems that you are not really interested in improving the encyclopaedia as a whole, but just the one article about yourself. So I think it's fair to ask what is your motivation here. Is it to be part of the wider editing community, or is simply to promote your own interests, through this one article, as described at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki-joint

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has passed you the Wiki Joint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff...and help with...huh?

October 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Singleton4321. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read and respond to this thread as soon as possible, as there is currently a unanimous consensus from multiple longstanding editors to ban you from the Oliver James article and its associated talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban enacted

Per consensus at the administrator's noticeboard (link), the following topic ban has been enacted:

"Singleton4321 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Oliver James (psychologist), broadly construed. While this topic ban extends to anything related to Oliver James on any page on the project (by virtue of being 'broadly construed'), I am also placing a pblock from the main article and main article talk page as proactive enforcement."

Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement.

Details regarding appealing a community-imposed topic ban are contained at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. This topic ban will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Unfortunately, I have only just discovered this ban, all the emails alerting me to it having been sent to my junk and me having had a much earned holiday from this following what I thought would be a decisive post regarding the ideological bias of the editors on that page - why is that post no longer on that page? It seems I cannot respond to it but I have not had a chance to. How should I go about objecting reopening it? Singleton4321 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You received multiple talk page messages while the thread was open, and you were actively editing during this time. You cannot be in involved with editing or discussing the topic of Oliver James anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Please edit in other topic areas. Details regarding appealing are in my original post above. Daniel (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted the ideological bias topic, as far as I know I didn't make any more edits or visits to the talk pages - during the time when the ban was being executed, as far as I know, I didn't go on wikipedia? Perhaps you have evidence to the contrarty -that i was actively editing during the time the ban was being carried out? Why did you not answer my simple question: why is that ideological bias post no longer on the talk page? I suspect its possible its because it was true and the ban is an attempt to stop this bias being known. You might find it interesting to read about Winston Smith's job in the Ministry of Truth in 1984 - just by deleting the ideological bias post, or allowing that to happen, you are seriously tampering with the truth... Singleton4321 (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be discussing this, even on this page. Instructions on how you can appeal are linked to above. Wikipedia is a private entity, not the state, so comparisons to 1984 are off base. We don't claim to be the truth, see WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not answer my simple question: why is that ideological bias post no longer on the talk page? Singleton4321 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, 331dot, Evans: I repeat my question which none of you are willing to answer, Why did you not answer my simple question: why is that ideological bias post no longer on the talk page? Singleton4321 (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not answer this equally simple question: during the time when the ban was being executed, as far as I know, I didn't go on wikipedia? Perhaps you have evidence to the contrarty -that i was actively editing during the time the ban was being carried out? Singleton4321 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to have been actively editing when the community decided to impose the topic ban in order for them to have done so. If that's the argument you wish to make in an appeal, then do so. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that all the notifications went to my junk during the time of the banning, so I was unable to respond. Daniel replied that 'you were actively editing during this time.' I asked him for evidence thereof, he has provided none, nor have you. Therefore, I did not have an opportunity to challenge the ban? Singleton4321 (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opportunity to challenge it is now, you have been provided with instructions on how to appeal. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignores my point: I did not have a chance to object to it before it was imposed. Singleton4321 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then get in your DeLorean and go back in time to tell yourself to challenge it at the time.....or bring that up in an appeal. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321, as you can see from the edit summary here your post was removed because it was in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no opportunity to challenge these false claims. But that is irrelevant to why the ideological bias topic was removed: I repeat, why was it removed, as far as I can see it was not cited as an example of a personal attack. I think we both know why it was removed, Evans... Singleton4321 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321, I know why it was removed, as does Borgenland who removed it. You still don't seem to know. I would caution you to remember that, under the terms of your topic ban, you should not be discussing the content of that post here, or anywhere else. If you insist on doing so, you risk further sanctions being applied. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:WALLOFTEXT. The fact is you can't convince editors of your silly allegations by making a WP:NPA on a bunch of well-meaning editors disguised as a long-winded and incoherent rant and making malicious accusations of editors disagreeing with you running a cabal of sorts. I suggest you either learn to write concisely or drop it before you run into greater trouble on ANI again. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems far more pugnacious than anything I have ever written. Is 331Dot or Daniel going to ban them? Singleton4321 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you know why it was removed, why dont you just say so rather than threatening me with further dishonesties, Evans? Singleton4321 (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "threatening" you. I'm just warning you of what might happen. I have no idea what you mean by "further dishonesties". Your tone, as ever, is belittling and belligerent. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban discussion was between 10/13 and 10/16. You were notified of it immediately above this section (and would have received a notification about it on-wiki, regardless of email problems). You were indeed active between 10/13 to 10/16, see here. If you wish to appeal, see the link provided above for instructions. But any further discussion about the subject or the talk page or the motivations of other editors which is not an appeal will result in me blocking you from editing any page on WP, including this one, indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, any discussion of motivation of other editors that occurs in an appeal will, almost certainly, doom the appeal to failure. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see another admin has blocked you for 2 days. My warning still stands; if this continues here, I'll upgrade to indefinite and take away access to this talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking a simple question: why was my Ideological Bias topic removed from the talk page and why will noone engage with my contention that its issues need to be addressed? Or are you going to ban me for asking this question? Singleton4321 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024 (2)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024 site block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to violate the topic ban on user talk. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]