User talk:Young English Actor

Welcome!

Hello, An Actor Eyes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Some1 (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nationality

Hi. Could you read this guide here regarding nationality of British nationals. Broadly the rule is that you don't change nationality without good reason. Keira Knightley is described as British on her article, probably because her father is English and her Mother Scottish. Do you have a reason for changing this? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person, as you did at Timothée Chalamet. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 01:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Call Me by Your Name (film), did not appear constructive and has 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. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 11:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at River Phoenix, 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. Donald Albury 21:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! --Bettydaisies (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Per WP:FIES "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it."--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 08:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Keira Knightley, did not appear constructive and has 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 use an edit summary for your future changes. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS include disregarding other editors' questions to explain your edits, as well as ignoring the edit summaries of other editors.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Keira Knightley. 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. Once again, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS states that not engaging in consensus building, ignoring summaries of other editors, and disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits is considered disruptive editing. If you seek to discuss a content dispute, please initiate a talk page discussion and explain your edits in edit summaries. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keira Knightley, you may be blocked from editing. Once again, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS states that not engaging in consensus building, ignoring edit summaries of other editors, and disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits is considered disruptive editing. --Bettydaisies (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Timothée Chalamet. 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. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 03:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jake Gyllenhaal, you may be blocked from editing. Please observe Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary, MOS:SEEALSO, WP:IFITAINTBROKE, WP:OVERKILL, and WP:BRD. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 09:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kaitlyn Dever, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beautiful Boy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hi. I've noticed you've continued, across a number of pages, to make unexplained edits altering the structure or content of the page. Often, when other users perform explained reverts of your edits, you simply wait a period of time before re-instating them without comment. Generally, this is considered WP:DISRUPT and breaks WP:BRD. I myself have reverted a number of edits I deem unconstructive, and unfortunately you have not participated in any attempts at discussing this edits with other users. I have no doubt that your intentions in furthering the biographies of those you edit is intact, but again, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, assuming good faith in others and engaging in consensus building (WP:CONS) are essential to writing an effective encyclopedia. I gently invite you to examine WP:LISTEN, WP:AINT, WP:FIES, WP:BRDD, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS moving forward. Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to List of LGBTQ Academy Award winners and nominees does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. BlueboyLINY (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keira Knightley, you may be blocked from editing. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS includes "disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" and "disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits", which you have done twice, despite multiple warnings.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Aviator (2004 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Best Actress in a Supporting Role.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 07:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jennifer Lawrence into List of Jennifer Lawrence performances. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this a bit: You have completely ignored all talk page notices and warnings, you are unresponsive, you do not communicate the purpose of your edits with edit summaries, and you do not engage with the community when there is disagreement. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you aren't really collaborating. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of edit summaries

It's quite obvious at this point that you've purposefully chosen to disregard past requests to use edit summaries when making changes to articles. While I'm not sure why you didn't abide by them, please be sure to implement these as often as possible in the future. They help give people a better sense of what the intentions of your edits are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask a question as to why this editor made a specific change at Idina Menzel, and to encourage the use of edit summaries. In reviewing this talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Ignoring warnings, not using edit summaries, it appears that asking the question and asking for edit summaries would be pointless. This user may not have ever looked at this talk page. @Anachronist:, would it be worth trying another block, and putting an explicit link to their talk page in the block log, to direct them here perhaps? It's hard to know what else to do other than issue a block. Sigh. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik: Since the prior block lifted, Young English Actor has used an edit summary here and there. Blocking is a tool intended to preserve the stability of the Wikipedia project, not to get someone's attention. The user was being disruptive before. Since the block, still somewhat disruptive (adding unsourced material etc.) but not so much. Users have been blocked indefinitely for refusing to collaborate, however, and Young English Actor seems constantly on the verge of crossing that line, although I must admit that editing Wikipedia on a mobile device isn't the best experience. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that perspective, Anachronist. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has communicated very occasionally (their fifty most current edits having two) through edit summaries, and can evidently see the edit summaries of others, indicated in their ANI. They started editing immediately after their block ended, so presumably they were aware of that as well. If this behavior keeps, it's time to question if they will ever be open to genuine collaboration.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

The recent edits you made to Lea Salonga constitute WP:EDIT WARring and have been reverted. Please do not continue to make the same changes. Instead, if you want to propose these changes and try to form a WP:CONSENSUS, use the Talk page. See also WP:BRD. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Timothée Chalamet. KyleJoan^talk 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Young English Actor, Communication is required. You have already been blocked once for failing to use edit summaries and communicate. It is likely the next time will be indefinite so please heed @KyleJoan:'s warning and adjust your editing accordingly. There really is no good reason this should be an issue so it is up you. S0091 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked to observe MOS:EGG multiple times. Please consider your fellow editors and stop adding astonishing piped links so that we don't have to spend time removing them. KyleJoan^talk 13:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charlie Stemp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Kipps.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, again

For edit warring on Jennifer Lawrence and for obstinately refusing to communicate with other editors, either on talk pages or in edit summaries, you leave me with no choice to act to preserve the stability of Wikipedia. Therefore:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Hi Young English Actor! Thank you for your edits to Hamilton (musical). It looks like you've copied or moved text from Hamilton (2020 film) into that page, and while you are welcome to do so, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest Tony

Please note that you cannot add claims to articles about Kilgore being the youngest Tony nomination unless you have a source that actually says this. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm Bovineboy2008. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Don't Look Up (2021 film), 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. BOVINEBOY2008 12:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Titanic (1997 film), 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. DonIago (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! --Bettydaisies (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Harry Styles, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan^talk 08:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block

Enough is enough. You have been warned multiple times, you are not learning from mistakes, you persist in engaging in repeated disruption, and you refuse to communicate with the community, neither in edit summaries nor on talk pages. You have been given many chances. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you are not collaborating. Therefore:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Well, I didn't do anything Young English Actor (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In particular, you have not communicated with the community. That's why you're blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:24, 1 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here …

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. PhilKnight (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here I do understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead Young English Actor (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Instead of repeating a message back to us, please demonstrate your understanding by specifically explaining what you did wrong, how you will avoid doing it again, and tell the specific contributions you wish to make. You won't have too many more chances to do so before losing access to this page, so make it count. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2021 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Rio Phoenix

A tag has been placed on Rio Phoenix requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet 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/Young English Actor. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 19:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever. I'm not really interested in using any other accounts but my own. Since I'm blocked, I have no desire to make any edits because I like my one and only account. Guess I find unique or something, I'm not sure. As you know, I've always had this tendency of expressing myself through actions rather than words. Maybe that's the main reason why I was so hesitant to communicate and write an edit summary… I wish I'd done that all differently since I saw myself as a good faith editor. At least I tried to be one… But there's nothing I can do about it, it is what it is. I'm not here to pour out the soul of mine anyway, am I? It's funny, it seems like one of those moments when I have to say goodbye to you. But what I really want to say is "see you". Unless you see me first. Young English Actor (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]