Anyways...

Also...

However, bear in mind...

Notwithstanding, again...

Hello, Diademchild and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one 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 interested in learning more about contributing, 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. Happy editing! Relinus (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] @Relinus Hello Relinus, thank you for your advice and comment. Much appreciated. Diademchild (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image The missing manual Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments 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 • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost, our newspaper • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi, "retired" and "former" shouldnt be included into the short description per WP:SDAVOID --FMSky (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky Hiya, wow I have just realised this! Thank you for reminding me. Diademchild (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: for people, short descriptions should indicate what they are known for. Footballers like Samuel Eto'o, Yaya Touré, Kolo Touré, Cesc Fàbregas are primarily known for having played football, not for coaching or other activities. See WP:SDEXAMPLES. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on I see, so the short description doesn't necessarily have to state or indicate what their latest occupation is now. Thanks a lot! Diademchild (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. :-) When readers search for an article, the short description should help them decide whether they've found the one they're looking for. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Subjects of BLP articles are not a reliable source for their own age unless there is other confirming evidence. I'm sure you can work out why that is - people, especially in the entertainment field, regularly make themselves out to be younger than they are. Obviously, in most cases this is not the case, they're simply telling the truth - but we cannot take their own word for it without other evidence. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite Hiya, thanks for your comment. Is there any particular BLP article subject you were referring to here? Diademchild (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Dhowre and her Instagram. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a reliable source out there for her age apart from herself though. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite Oh I see! So does the website "Famous Birthdays" count as a reliable source out there for the D.O.B.'s of subjects of BLP articles? Because her age on there, correlates with what she posted on her Instagram page. Diademchild (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that's the problem. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Famous_Birthdays, you can't use that source at all, because it's blocked for unreliability. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite But she openly said she was turning 35 this year (in June 2023) in an online interview, which again correlates with what she posted on Instagram. Surely she wouldn't be lying about that, so isn't that pretty much public knowledge? Diademchild (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I agree, she's almost certainly not lying. But we still need secondary sources for BLP information. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite No worries. I just find it funny how I have seen a couple subjects of BLP articles on Wikipedia particularly in the entertainment sector, have their real age verified on Wikipedia by what they would have posted on their birthday previously on Instagram. Diademchild (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty out there like that, but they shouldn't be. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (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! Paulpat99 (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulpat99 Oh my apologies. As a fellow colleague on Wikipedia, I shall take your feedback on board. ;-) Diademchild (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Editing Paulpat99 (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fresh and Fit Podcast, 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya; I hope you're fine. Indeed, I did add content to this page but I didn't provide references as the references are linked to various videos on the podcast's YouTube channel. So I think you made a mistake in reverting my changes; but I will probably look to reinstate the changes I previously made, later on if that is alright with you. Happy editing. Diademchild (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you add your changes back again without a reliable source, I will revert them and add another warning to your talk page. Please note that Wikipedia does not accept unsourced content or original research. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My person, is there a reason you only use extremely vague edit summaries? They don't really explain anything and make it difficult to understand what was done for others without viewing each edit. A type of cabinet (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I hope you're fine. Well I mostly edit the "Article Descriptions" of article pages. But I admit that sometimes laziness can play a part in giving vague edit summaries so if you are bothered about it, I do apologise about that. Diademchild (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Please stop edit warring with me over at the WP:BLP article Amouranth. Else I will be taking you to WP:AE. Please read WP:BRD, especially the "discuss" part. It's BRD, not BRRRRRR. WP:CTOPs require careful editing and less WP:BOLDness than usual. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring with you. With respect, I'm simply appropriating the unhidden and verifiable birth date information for Amouranth, with primary sources. Diademchild (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? It's worse than vague. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you reverted one of my edits recently which is how I came across your account for the first time. I notice you seem to spend a lot of your time adding birth dates to articles, primarily to the short descriptions. I would suggest you make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia policies relevant to these areas, as you may not be aware, but some of your additions would appear to go against these guidelines.

WP:BLP, specifically WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. When a date of birth is added to an article it must be reliably sourced. WP:PRS details the acceptability or otherwise of many commonly-used sources. You can use a verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" if there is no reason to doubt it.

WP:SHORTDESC, specifically WP:SDDATES. It is helpful when you add, say '1820-1882' to the short description of a historical figure, but it is less helpful when you add birthdates for living people. They must be properly sourced within the article in order to be added. (Personally I think even then they usually don't need to be added because they make the short description longer without adding real information, but as long as you're working within the guidelines I can't stop you there).

I hope you find the information in these documents useful and can take them on board going forward. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I hope you're doing fine. Yes, I predominantly spend most of my time adding birthdates to articles of subjects, and the date of birth I provided for one of your recent subject's article is authentic, so I have now reverted your previous change and have included a reliable source in support of that subject's current age. Now regarding short descriptions, I authentically add birthdates for living people especially if their birthdate has genuinely been confirmed, just to keep up with the overall standard across articles of living subjects; so I would never deliberately violate any article description rules. Moreover, thank you for your informational support, as I aim to become a better and respected Wikipedian. Happy editing! Diademchild (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you've added an inline reference to the Myleene Klass article now (and it looks like Klass could have made social media posts that could also be used as references), so you'll no doubt be happy to know I won't be removing this information again. It's really important that all birthdays you add (to an article or a short description) are supported like that, so I hope you keep it up. I won't intentionally 'follow' you around Wikipedia, but there's every chance our paths may cross again, and as long as you're working as you've done with Myleene Klass, and keep to the WP guidelines I've shared above, I'll be able to keep my finger off the backspace key :) best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 September 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Salvatore Schillaci, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bonnie Blue (actress). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Launchballer 15:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Her biographical information can be widely found online. Diademchild (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the biographies of living persons policy. Unreferenced dates of birth and real names, especially given that Blue has stated she doesn't want the latter online, is clearly contentious and will be removed continuously if you insist on re-adding it. You may reinstate her birthday with an appropriate source.--Launchballer 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if I provide a reference for her biological name and/or date of birth, would you accept it? Diademchild (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source for her date of birth I'd accept it; her real name should not appear per WP:BLPPRIVACY.--Launchballer 15:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StarsUnfolded is not a reliable source. See WP:RSP.--Launchballer 15:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what sort of reliable source are you looking for? And honestly, I see no justification for hiding her biological name. After all her friend Lily Phillips has her biological name for display on Wikipedia. At least 90% of Wikipedia articles on living persons, hardly abide by that Wikipedia policy. Diademchild (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists; Phillips's article cites the South China Morning Post, which is regarded by WP:RSP as generally reliable. See that page, linked above.--Launchballer 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I respect you as a fellow Wikipedian, so I wouldn't want to enter into an edit war with you. But I believe I have now supplied a relevant citation for/to the subject's birthdate. Diademchild (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the day in that source, only the month. I rejected it when I was expanding the article, but I'll ask at WP:RSN.--Launchballer 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source you added just redirected me to a spam site. There is a consensus at WP:RSN#NationalWorld.com that the birthdate should stay out, please don't readd it.--Launchballer 15:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are widespread popular English tabloid newspapers which openly state the subject's birthdate, but I figured you'd probably refute any tabloid newspaper source. Eventually her full birthdate will eventually be published on here as she gains more popularity. Diademchild (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's name has now been published by the BBC [1] Guardian and Sky News. Some of those citations were already in the article. There is no doubt that those are reputable sources with editorial oversight and that would not publish fake news or violations of UK privacy law. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So what do you suggest? Should the subject's real biological name, appear in their infobox's and/or article's introduction? Because under normal circumstances it should be. Diademchild (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I provided had a middle name, nor did you add another with a middle name. If an uninvolved user or admin saw that, they could have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Please WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. There is a difference between a performer's first and surname being published by the BBC, and plucking a middle name out of what appears to be thin air. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I supplied a source from Fiji with her middle name. And if you search for her first and middle name on Google, it appears to have some ground. Diademchild (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Amouranth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Morbidthoughts. I understand what you're saying, but I don't get why you're clearly refusing to accept the reality of her birthdate in December 1993, despite what she has said via her Social Media platforms, and despite what a simple Google search confirms as well. To be fair, I'm only publishing what I know from her, being that she was born on 2 December 1993 and her middle name is Michelle; and I will return to provide a genuine reference to support this. The source herself has used her verified Twitter to confirm her age and birthday (thereby using mathematics, her date of birth). In the same way, that there are several thousands of articles on living persons, that rely on confirmation from the source themselves regarding their age or date of birth, is the same way the subject has reveal her's too. But I guess that's the frustration from pedantic Wikipedians like myself, about Wikipedia overall; the inconsistency about the sourcing of genuine information on living persons.

Anyways if you have a look here, I've already started a conversation around her birth year's whole deciphering. Feel free to chime in because I hope we can come to a logical and reasonable conclusion about the facts on her. Diademchild (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have reinstated disputed BLP edits three times over the objections of 2 other users per WP:UNDEL. Not only were those sources disputed as being reliable, you reinstated primary sources that did not directly support the birthdate 12/2/1993 without applying WP:OR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject clearly said she was celebrating her 23rd birthday in a December 2016 post on her verified social media account. So respectfully to anyone, does it then take a rocket scientist to fully understand that she wasn’t born in 1994? Diademchild (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You reinstated an exact date December 2, 1993 on your last revert along with a poor source for her middle name.[[2]] You should have gained consensus on the article talk page before reverting even the second time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the exact birthdate of December 2, 1993, can be found by/with her announcing her 23rd birthday on December 2, 2016, on her own verified Social Media account, so that’s a literal authentic source. I will eventually provide a reference from Business Insider – an authentic source in America – mentioning her middle name. And once I do, that should finalise the topic around her middle name right? Diademchild (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Our policies regarding living persons is one of the most important on the project and the importance of reliable sourcing is paramount. You have violated this policy over and over again, relying on poor sourcing, synthesis and original research to add and restore disputed content to biography articles. I was going to indefinitely topic ban you from all BLPs indefinitely but am going to try this timed block first to hopefully drive home the absolute requirement for the best sourcing when editing BLPs.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:27, 1 March 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Diademchild (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC) I apologise, and realise I made a terrible error of judgement. I totally accept that I should have known better as a smart individual. I was just trying desperately to prove a point using logic, when I’m not really that sort of person. I should have waited for a fluent response from other editors in the subject’s talk page. They have replied but I cannot even respond back to them with this restriction. I’m sure they understood I wasn’t deliberately editing malicious. I’ve never been blocked before, so I never thought it could happen to me in good faith. My actions landed me in trouble but I will try my best to be patient henceforth.[reply]

Decline reason:

Your appeal provides no reason why you should be unblocked. If anything, you seem to agree that the block is justified. That being the case, I am declining your appeal, and suggest you just sit this one out. You may wish to study the WP:BLP policy, violations of which led to this block, so that you can avoid a repeat of such problems in the future. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I basically told you this would happen here and you brushed me off. I even made my comment under a giant template warning you about how sensitive WP:BLP is. I would hope that if you are unblocked, that you would be a bit more willing to calibrate to feedback in the future without needing to block you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't necessarily brush you off. But I do suspect you sort of initiated the blocking. And you shouldn't have. I initially came to you, for us to discuss the subject's real date of birth. I’m pedantic so I admit I didn’t realise there was such uproar over how WP:BLP articles are treated though. For example, as a mathematician, what irks me is seeing that the subject could be born in 1994, when we all know that's definitely not the case, especially if her birthday's in December and she's currently already aged 31. Diademchild (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you sort of initiated the blocking. Ponyo blocked you, not me. I have not communicated with Ponyo in any way about this. Your behavior violated our BLP norms and is catching the attention of uninvolved people.

What irks me is seeing that she could be born in 1994, when we all know that's definitely not the case. I tried to explain this on the article talk page. I talked about how in general on Wikipedia we want to add accurate knowledge (which this is), but that BLP and WP:BLPPRIVACY are exceptions where we as a community have decided to prioritize a living person's privacy for ethical reasons, over the ideal of having accurate knowledge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturday. I learn my lesson and I’ll sit the edit blocking out. I’m not too big to be punished. Afterall, compared to you all I’m relatively inexperienced in our Wikipedian community, so I guess I’ll take this as my first and hopefully last ever negative moment on here, lol.

Notwithstanding, Amouranth’s middle name is Michelle, and when I return unrestricted I will provide a reference to the Business Insider in support of that. Or if you’re happy to add her middle in now with that reference, I can send that Business Insider reference to you now? It’s up to you. Diademchild (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just drop a link to the Business Insider article at Talk:Amouranth when your block is lifted and I'm sure some folks will take a look. Don't forget that since your edit is disputed, you need some folks to chime in in favor of including it on the talk page before it can be included. By the way, if you're fully onboard with the ideas of 1) being careful editing BLPs and 2) taking disputes to the talk page and getting some support for inclusion before re-adding rather than just reverting, I will support your unblock. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I’m fully on-board with the two points you mentioned above. I promise, I’m not a difficult person to deal with, and as a Christian myself, I understand that I’m not perfect. So I can be misguided sometimes and subsequently make mistakes. But as I’ve said on my user page, Wikipedia has a wonderful community, and I’m sure most senior Wikipedians like yourself, might understand those who prefer to unmaliciously edit in good faith like myself. Diademchild (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, sounds good. I now support your unblock. @Ponyo, thoughts on unblocking? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Novem Linguae. Hopefully Ponyo, kindly cancels altogether or reduces my edit restriction by days. So yes, I'll eventually resume the Talk:Amouranth discussion. Moreover, I noticed that you're an interface administrator and that's a pretty big deal on/for this platform/project. I'm not sure if anyone's ever said this to you before, but with your Wikipedian experience, I'd like for you to be like "some sort of" mentor to me on Wikipedia, if of course you wouldn't mind? Diademchild (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Interface admins are just admins that are good at programming. Any admin with programming experience can apply for it.

I'd say admin is the thing that's harder to get. In my case it required a week of (mostly positive) public comments from over 200 people.

Overall though we try not to focus too much on seniority or status here. The fact that someone is an admin is ignored in article content discussions, where we are all equals, and good sources and correctly following our policies matters the most. Admin status can come into play with user behavior discussions though, where admins can choose to give formal warnings or use their block button, when it follows the community's rules for doing so.

Despite the egalitarianism, if someone is a newer user, it can be a good idea to follow the lead of more experienced Wikipedians, until one's own sense of how things work around here is well calibrated.

Sure, I'd be happy to informally mentor you. Glad to see that you're still excited about Wikipedia and didn't get driven off. You have a good attitude. I think things will work out just fine. I predict an unblock shortly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. So I saw you reverted an edit I made on my talk page. That's good, and as an "informal mentor" of mine, I give you permission to edit my talk page and user page if you want, if you notice any spelling, edit or revert errors. Mind you, I thought as an interface administrator, that you could directly unblock me yourself? Nevertheless, I do appreciate the compliment of "things working out fine" and of me "having good attitude". I hope things work out fine for you too. Diademchild (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revert. Had to enforce WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK.

Myself and other admins do have the technical ability to unblock you, but it is kind of rude to override another admin, and I might be a little WP:INVOLVED here so wouldn't be a great look for me. Ideally Ponyo or an uninvolved admin should lift this block. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What I still don’t get is how Ponyo managed to find my account, to block me in the first instance. Because before the block, I don’t think I had ever crossed paths with Ponyo via any page article. If anything, I was thinking it could have been you to potentially block me, which was why I previously assumed that you initiated the block since as you said, you were technically involved in my revert, lol. So how was I somehow alerted to Ponyo? Diademchild (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Ponyo will tell you when she gets back. Looks like she hasn't edited in a day or two. But I'd say the most likely scenario is checking her watchlist, or receiving a complaint about you on her user talk or at a noticeboard that she was patrolling. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Since the only thing I can do for now is talk to/with you, I have a quick question. Is is true or false to assume the following viewpoint about how Wikipedia works, in one act: Diademchild edits an article and puts in "2+2=4." He is reverted by an editor claiming that "2+2=5." He reverts the edits claiming WP:BLUESKY and "take it to talk, but 2+2=4." Another editor reverts me and says, "It's not BLUE if someone reverts, stop edit warring." I then go to the talkpage and present my case, but the two editors are now claiming they have consensus that 2+2=5. I try to show how 2+2=4, but am told I'm being DISRUPTIVE and a WIKILAWYER. I then say that consensus can't trump the truth, that 2+2=4. Finally, an admin shows up and blocks Diademchild for being disruptive and a wikilawyer. Will the article then show that 2+2=5 due to consensus of its editors? Diademchild (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I don't really want to rehash all that. I thought we had wrapped that up and left it in a good spot.

But anyway, yeah, if people are telling you that putting 2+2=4 breaks the rules, and you edit war with them to put it in anyway, then expect to get blocked. Shouldn't be breaking the rules.

Your analogy also ignores the violating a living person's privacy and facilitating identity theft component of WP:BLPPRIVACY. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Following a useful chat on my talk page with Novem Linguae, a senior Wikipedian who supports my unblocking, I understand: 1.) being careful about editing BLPs and 2.) taking disputes to the talk page and getting some support for inclusion before re-adding rather than just reverting. So, respectfully we now both believe I don't deserve a necessitation of an edit blocking of seven days upon my account. Regards. Diademchild (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block converted to a partial block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a bad unblock request, but I am little hesitant around your wording of "getting some support for inclusion". You should read WP:CONSENSUS if you haven't already. You should settle the matter on the talk page, and then edit the article, not continue an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya PhilKnight thanks for your response. I agree, yes, that's what'll do. For example, there's even a conversation left for me to duly respond to at talk:Amouranth, which I cannot under edit restriction, but I won't be making any edit or revert, until the discussion or dispute has been concluded. If you have any other recommendation or advice before I get unblocked, feel free to inform me. Thanks. Diademchild (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ponyo: - how would you feel about converting this block to a partial block of the biography article? 16:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight thanks for your help, but I think Ponyo is busy in real life as she alluded to on the top of her talk page. And she indeed has not returned to Wikipedia since she unconventionally and temporarily blocked me, of all people. The only way I can avoid sitting out the rest of my edit restriction, is for another Administrator to rightly unblock me, because she might not return online for a long while. Diademchild (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: The issues with unsourced biographical content extend well beyond a single article, hence my site wide block. I suppose that's neither here not there now, but I do have concerns with edits made since you modified the block, which I've asked follow-up questions on in a separate section below.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have converted your block to a partial block of Amouranth article only. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're a legend. Many thanks. I'll resume my discussion on Amouranth's talk page, once I'm fully 100% unrestricted. In the meantime, feel free to provide me with any feedback or any other advice, before then. ~~~~ Diademchild (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Diademchild, what reliable source did you use for this birthdate?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and this one as well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and this one.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so regarding Joan McVittie this is her profile on Companies House: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/WO1uDMSnAXS_7BWmcAs4bmQHHR8/appointments . So she's definitely born in September 1952. I just got the day of her birthmonth, from the result that comes up when you type up her fullname on Google. Is that valid? Diademchild (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companies House cannot be used for biographical statistics. And no, you cannot just Google a person and then add whatever comes up. You can only add what is explicitly verified in reliable sources.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Companies House is widely used across for biographies of private living persons on Wikipedia. I respect you, but I think you might be just being strict. Diademchild (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's used in other biographies then it should be removed from those, not added to others. It relies on user-generated submissions and WP:BLPPRIMARY documents.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you for the WP:DISCOGS and WP:BLPPRIMARY links. Just to confirm, feel free to correct me if you feel I've made any other edit mistakes via my contributions. I'm inexperienced on here, and I reckon you're probably much older than me as well. I noticed you're busy in real life, so I was wondering how often you're active on Wikipedia weekly/monthly, patrolling the site? Diademchild (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, @Ponyo. I hope you're fine. What a pleasant surprise, to see you on here. Anyways for that particular birthdate, I cited this [https://www.discogs.com/artist/27805-Courtney-Pine?srsltid=AfmBOoq8Oyi1Z02vjm7zo7l-Cyz4m1nnPVNL03KOEK7ODud35z_5Xwjw source] Diademchild (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For which one? I listed three.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the first one regarding Courtney Pine Diademchild (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is usergenerated and cannot be used as a source - see WP:DISCOGS. And the other two?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 March 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Christopher Hughes (quiz contestant), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give you a contentious topics notification regarding BLPs, but you have already received two within the last year, including a this one from Doug Weller, another admin. You absolutely must start following our policies regarding reliable sources in BLPs immediately, there is no room for additional warnings.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you @Ponyo, but in my opinion, 80% of BLPs don't truly follow reliable sourcing if we're being honest, so it's easy to forget that sometimes when you're inexperienced, and to slip into unreliable sourcing. I always edit in good faith though, and that's something no user or Administrator can take away from me. Diademchild (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith goes a long way on this project, but, outside of outright vandalism and racist/nationalist attacks, repeated BLP violations (along with copyright violations) are the two quickest paths to sanctions as they open Wikipedia to potential legal/rela world ramifications. There are myriad ways you can contribute in a WP:WIKIGNOME way that will improve the encyclopedia. If you are having trouble getting a firm grasp on reliable sourcing in biography articles, perhaps you can concentrate on a different area for now. Just a thought.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you @Ponyo. I'll see what I can do going forwards. I believe you're doing a good job as an Administrator on here, so I have no qualms regarding your input. As I said you're probably older than me, so I'll take your advice on board. Moreover, regarding my edits over the last year or so around BLPs, would you say they've negatively impacted my user reputation on here, or is it just a minor thing in the grand scheme of things? Especially, if say I hoped to become an Administrator on here like you, one day? Diademchild (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find plenty of information on adminship at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sahara Knite, you may be blocked from editing. Opolito (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I wanted to draw this to your attention, given this user's history of BLP violations. There are a number of these unsourced birthday edits recently, for example [3] and [4]. These seem pretty problematic to me given the past warnings and a block. Best, Opolito (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I can provide an acceptable source for the birthday of Sahara Knite here: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Sahara-Knite#:~:text=Born%20-%20Feb%2004%2C%201975%20England,Knite%20is%20a%20popular%20Actor., and regarding Jahdiel I simply added the birthday that was already provided in their infobox, into that article's introduction. So what have I done wrong? Diademchild (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite your source when you add material to the article, not later on your talk page. The birthday in the infobox on Jahdiel was unsourced, so you cannot use that as an excuse to add further unsourced material to a biography of a living person. Opolito (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I never knew that. If that birthdate is already on the page surely it would be correct. I only added it to the article's introduction because I thought editors forgot to do so. Clearly I made both edits in good faith. I think what you've caused isn't fair, you should have spoken to me first before alerting @Ponyo:, and I would have followed your advice. I thought we had a friendly community on this collaborative platform. Diademchild (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This will be the last timed block. If the WP:BLP violations continue when the block expires you will likely either be topic banned from editing BLPs altogether or indefinitely blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Hiya, honestly, despite being on this platform for two years now, I believe my edits regularly get misunderstood or scrutinized harshly despite always editing in good faith, whereas there are editors who don't cite their sources that have never been cautioned once. As a WikiGnome, in my spare time I fix text anomalies on biographies of living persons, so if I notice there's something missing with support from an available infobox, I'll add it on. I have read the guidelines on biographies of living persons, so any time I add a birthdate I have gotten it from a reliable source. I don't see why I have been given a month-long editing blockage especially when, for example, I have simply added a confirmed birthdate from a subject's infobox into their article introduction? There are other pieces of information on other topics that I have since identified for editing, so can my blockage significantly be/get reduced to a week at most, or may I please be allowed to edit other topics for now away from biographies of living persons, since apparently I seem to be making petty mistakes for it. Regards, Diademchild (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Converting this site-wide block to a three-month WP:TBAN from WP:BLP articles, per discussion below. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on the edit you made on Sahara Knite, mentioned above? This one: [5]. I don't understand your explanation about the infobox. That article hasn't got an infobox. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, sure thing. So basically, with that particular article, there are common and verifiablle birth sources for her that are available for editors to include, one of them being this one here: [6] , but I unintentionally forgot to add it because I prefer adding birth sources to infoboxes, but as you've rightly said that subject does not have an infobox. So once I get unblocked, I'll either create a brand new infobox for the subject and include that source, or just simply add that birth source to her preexisting article introduction. But you could let me know your thoughts, about which you think could be preferable, before I proceed. Regards Diademchild (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diademchild, that is not a reliable source for her birthday. You shouldn't be using that as a reference for her birthday at all, in the infobox or otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought The Times of India is/was not outlawed, and is/was considered at least to be evaluated with caution, as per perennial sources, and particularly since the birthdate on there correlates with what's mentioned on other websites or platform's of the subject, surely it is/was a valid source, because I've seen The Times of India cited on Wikipedia before. Either way, my edit was done in good faith, but I guess I shall be staying away from biographies of living persons for a while, once you hopefully unblock me. Thanks. Diademchild (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India would be a reliable or reasonably reliable source, yes, depending on the context. Can you try to figure out why that link in particular is not a reliable source? I'd like you to try and think through this one, since using reliable sources is really important, whether you're editing on BLPs or not. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I guess this would be a teachable moment for me, because that particular link correctly states her birthdate and place of birth, so I'd struggle to justify whay it couldn't be considered, especially since The Times of India would be a reliable or reasonably reliable source. Obviously you're an admin so you'll probably know why more than me as to why that particular link is unreliable, but if I were to take a guess would it be because that particular link has no date, external link or author featured? Diademchild (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you got most of the way there. What you're looking at isn't actually an article on The Times of India. In fact, what ToI is actually telling you is "Showing 0 results" and "Sorry, We couldn’t find any results" - they don't have any information on her at all. It's not their image of her, either: [7]. I'm not sure where they got their data from, but it seems to me that this only exists on their website to get clicks from google searches like yours. What makes a reliable source reliable is that the information is (theoretically, anyway), traceable, fact-checked, and/or subject to editorial oversight of some kind. Does that make sense? -- asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, fair enough. I guess it sure makes sense. Thank you for that teachable moment. I'm still learning on this platform. So essentially what you're trying to imply is that, even if information is found on a website considered to be of a reasonably reliable source, unless there is a date or author at least of some kind attached to that particular link, then it's best to err on the side of caution, right? Diademchild (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, not quite. What we care about is the reliability of the source. ToI, in this particular case, is clearly not the source of that data. It's actually not at all clear where that data is coming from. You should always be able to explain why the source of the information you're using is reliable. "It's in the NYT" is not a good reason - think of WP:RSP as basically a series of shortcuts. What we're actually doing to generate those listings is looking at things like "the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", "this source was overseen by a credible editorial board", "the source is an expert in their field", "the research is backed up by many citations to other reliable sources", and so on. In this case we don't have anything positive we can say about that information on ToI, but we do have red flags: "no clear source for information", "blank search results suggest clickfarming", "image clearly scraped from somewhere else online". So we have no reason to believe the information is reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright understood. So what do you suggest regarding my unblocking? And once I'm unblocked, what do you suggest I focus my edits on for now? -- Diademchild (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider shifting your editing focus away from biographies of living people, given the large range of other topics and pages on Wikipedia that could benefit from your edits... -MoonOwO- (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I agree. I just sometimes have an uncontrollable urge to contribute to biographies of living persons, especially when their birthdate is missing but the subject has indirectly confirmed it themselves via the social media page, or when the sole consistent birthdate of the subject has been published online albeit via an unreliable or tabloid source; as is the case regarding 99% of biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. At most for now, I'll probably be making sure that short descriptions of living persons are accurate though. Diademchild (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth considering not doing that. It is a bit like poking a landmine with a stick, but hey, you do you. -MoonOwO- (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for your take. I see you're relatively new on here as well. So how did you actually come across this thread discussion? Diademchild (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, I find the block log particularly interesting to look at. That's how I found this thread. -MoonOwO- (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diademchild, I'd be willing to unblock you early if you accepted a topic ban from BLPs. @Ponyo, thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: If anything, rereading the entirety of this talk page and your discussion with Diademchild here, I think a BLP topic ban (three months, maybe?) is more appropriate than my original timed block. This editor continues (admittedly) to be more concerned about ensuring full birthdays are included in articles than ensuring that the content meets WP:DOB policy. While they are attempting to learn how to incorporate WP:RS and WP:BLP into their edits, it's being approached backwards (i.e. "how do I find a way to get this information I found somewhere on the internet in to this article" instead of "are there reliable sources that would allow us to include missing information in this article"). I think a full BLP ban is necessary as allowing Diademchild to test the boundaries of reliable sourcing on our BLP articles is suboptimal at best. A BLP ban will allow Diadem to hopefully become more proficient in identifying reliable sources in areas that do not have the same real world implications. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. @Diademchild, I don't think a BLP topic ban just for the rest of the block as you suggest below is quite long enough, so I'll go with the three months @Ponyo suggested here. If you want to have that lifted early, please appeal at WP:AN with some good edits behind you to demonstrate that you've learned better. I can't say I recommend doing so at any point (I just want to make you aware of the appropriate route for appeal), but if you do appeal to have it lifted early, I would advise not doing so at the original end date of the one-month block, but no earlier than one month from today. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And if you mean a topic ban from BLPs throughout the rest of the block timer, that sounds reasonable. As I think we could assume that an indefinite topic ban, would be unnecessary. — Diademchild (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@asilvering, just a point/thought from me. So here's an example of a birthdate in/of a BLP that I normally like to fix: Nia Sanchez. If you check her page, it simply says she's born 1990. That is correct, but totally vague, and according to her she is also born on 15 February, as you can see in the hashtags of her instagram posts here: [8] or [9]. There are currently no perennial sources, or at least I cannot find any, confirming her birthday as 15 February though, but if I or anyone else were to justifiably add her real birthday (February 15) to her article, would we definitely need to cite any of her instagram pages aforementioned, too? Or just wait for an eventual perennial source? -- Diademchild (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just let others handle this. -MoonOwO- (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it clearly hasn't been brought to anyone's attention, since the subject's article page got created over 10 years ago lol. Heck, since you're aware of it now, you may feel free to improve on that section of her page, if you wanted. Diademchild (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do technology, not people. -MoonOwO- (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you added her birthday based on her own instagram posts, you would have to cite them. That's WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB. However, you need to be very careful to read what it says at WP:DOB. You need to keep in mind whether the subject is a public figure, and how widely they publish that information themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, many thanks. She is a public figure, since having won Miss USA 2014, with a now verified social media presence, since having subsequently appeared on the The Valley. -- Diademchild (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Three Ds of foreign policy, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See MOS:OVERLINK. CodeTalker (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Per Wimmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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) 19:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just because you deleted the warning messages doesn't mean people can't see them in the history logs. Please stop violating rules. It won't help you or any other editor. -MoonOwO- (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @-MoonOwO-, thanks for your message. Sure thing. I still cannot believe I did all that yesterday, but I think I did it all out of anxiety, considering it's very uncharacteristic of me to ever be like that. So, also @Opolito, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise directly to you too. I reflected and looking back, I guess I was somewhat unprofessional to you; and that's not what I'm all about. From my perspective, I just felt like you came out of nowhere recently this month, and started helicoptering over my edits. And because you joined this collaborative project nearly a year after me, I could not understand why it felt like you were acting like an admin or even their sidekick. But I guess, you were just trying to teach me a lesson yourself. Nonetheless, I'm still learning everyday, so going forwards if you see me making an editorial mistake, I'm happy for you to talk to me on here first, preferably without alerting an admin, because just like you, I would never do anything disruptive on here. Besides, we've all likely got real lives outside of this platform, so like you said, we really should be respectful always. Regards -- Diademchild (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Integrated library system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Computerize.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bonnie Blue (actress).

There is no verification that the subject is the same person as in the newspaper announcement. Participants in ongoing discussions also cannot unilaterally declare consensus achieved. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Sangdeboeuf. I understand your plea, but with no opposition to her biographical inclusion so far or vote for your standpoint, I honestly don’t know what else there is for anybody to wait for, especially since the survey is already a “swift close”. With it being obvious that it’s the same person as in that newspaper announcement here, it’s apparent that you’re leaning more on the subject’s undisclosed emotions to do with her private life, despite the facts clearly being there to verify/authenticate the subject’s biographical information for inclusion. But facts override feelings, when it comes to verifiable information. Even, you probably know already that there is overwhelming support to include the subject’s birthname and birthdate into her article page; and that apart from you, there is unlikely to be another user/editor that agrees wholeheartedly with your stance. But for the sake of your request here, and with your “somewhat stubborn filibustering”, I can surely wait at least another week before reverting your edit, if of course another user/editor hasn’t already reverted it before then. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 01:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on published, reliable sources that directly support the material to be included, not what you or I might think is "obvious". A single person so far has !voted to close the discussion, which is not the same as the discussion actually being closed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but the results of that survey is/are clearly not contentious to any editor/user apart from you, and the consensus is clearly obvious to all participants, so formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Without precious time being wasted, we are are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance, with this one being included. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 09:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has never published their full date of birth that I'm aware of, and there's no consensus on the talk page to combine different sources to extrapolate the subject's WP:DOB. Discuss this at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you preferably start off this discussion please. Since you have finally allowed for us to inlcude her first and last name, I’m assuming that it would be best for you to kick start the discussion around her birthdate (and perhaps the inclusion of her middle name), before I and other editors reply. Thanks. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just started a new thread at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, many thanks. Don’t forget that we also need to address the reliability of her birth announcement here, so we can properly add in her full birth/government name. So in addition to the question you poised, and in order for us to kill two birds with one stone, if you could also add/edit in the question of whether we can accept this birth announcement as proof of her full birth/government name as well, that would be decent. Regards, — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is ongoing at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue (actress). Please note that BLPPRIVACY requires that full dates of birth be widely published by reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete your previously new thread? I thought that previous RfC had been closed? So you effectively want us all to address it within/in one whole RfC? Because I cannot find the new question for the new information we want to add/address, regarding the same subject? Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 21:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the previous discussion at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue (actress) was still open. There's no reason to open a duplicate thread while that one is still ongoing. I've just added my two cents regarding the newspaper announcement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure thing, no problem. It’s just that newer or more recent issues have appeared on that same noticeboard, so hopefully it won’t take long for us to overcome any conflict resolutions and/or it won’t pass over the eyes of interested users/editors on here. Thanks — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 21:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Your opinions about the subject's "lewd antics" are irrelevant and in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM. I have no problem escalating this to WP:AE if such displays continue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Diademchild. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also for your violations of your 3-month topic ban you agreed to above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hiya. I'm honestly flabbergasted to find myself blocked. Indeed I remember getting conditionally unblocked on April 24th, 2025 as a result of accepting a three-month topic ban from all pages relating to biographies of living persons. It was my first time receiving a topic ban back then, and because I hadn't fully understoood the conditions behind a topic ban back then, I uncharacteristically almost immediately violated the TBAN with BLP edits. I should have appealed that/this topic ban after at least a month, as I was told to, but I forgot to do so. However a couple of months had passed, and with other commitments outside of here, I lost track of time so having spent some time away from BLPs I used that time to learn or experiment with my source referencing skills away from Wikipedia. I've made it clear previously that I'm a WikiGnome and WikiJanitor, so I prefer privately fixing typos or grammar, updating short descriptions and adding birth dates and other biographical trivia to articles, including BLPs. BLPs consist of a large majority of articles on Wikipedia, but of course, when/where necessary (if you check the editing history of the following article pages) I have also edited other topic areas since April 24th 2025, like I have done previously related to sports here, here, here, or to/with transportation here or here. We all have different backgrounds and perspectives, so I may be open to criticism or common mistakes, but I clearly do not and never have had any ulterior motive on this platform. Notwithstanding, in the last ten days or so, I then started engaging in talk pages of BLPs like this one here as a couple months had passed since April 24th, 2025, assuming that I was not in any breach of any topic ban. Other users/editors were interacting with me so I assumed, all was well. I agree with this platform's policies and guidelines, and I apologise for any unconventional breaches, as I behave with decorum and always discuss respectfully. Would it please be possible to get unblocked, because this is harsh and for me it feels discouraging altogether. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 07:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not convince me that the problems that led to the block will not recur. If you are unable to resist your "uncontrollable urge" to edit BLPs, and dismiss others who point out such edits, you need to remain blocked to protect Wikipedia. If this discourages you from contributing, quite frankly I'm not sure that's a bad thing. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2025 (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.

Hiya @331dot, I promise that the problems that led to the block won't recur. I think before potentially retiring (if at all), that the best possible remedy would be for me to stay away from BLPs altogether, by means of a topic ban for at least another three months (or however long you may deem fit). And to use that particular intervening time to take a break potentially away from editing on here, to see where my head is at. What do you think? –Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 16:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Following advice from 331dot to make a new request for someone else to review, I think I can agree to another BLP topic ban for at least another three months (or however long deemed fit). And to use that particular intervening time on a BLP topic ban, to take a break potentially away from editing on here, to see where my head is at. In the previous request, I previously explained in context, the lapse in responsibility (on my end) that I'd say led to this block, and how I clearly do not and never have had any ulterior motive on this platform, and also how I duly remain in agreement with this platform's policies and guidelines. –Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 16:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is nothing here that gives me confidence you will not repeat the same behavior, including I think I can agree. That's not your call. Star Mississippi 01:39, 1 July 2025 (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.

Hiya @Star Mississippi, I understand that you may have no confidence that I may not change my behaviour, but I agree to change. I think the reality has set in that I may not be unblocked, but I remain committed to remaining actively on this platform. I was wondering what you suggest, going forwards? –Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 15:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diademchild you've made this promise on multiple occasions and have broken it on just as many as is clear from this page's history. I think you need to take time on another project and build a positive, collaborative editing portfolio that shows you respect WP:BLP and understand sourcing. And then you could be considered for an unblock here. Without a track record, I'm not sure an unblock is wise or that we won't end up right back here again. Star Mississippi 02:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this could be easier said than done. Apart from Wikipedia (and unless you may have any in mind), I cannot seem to identify any other online platform that may readily allow any individual to build a positive, collaborative editing portfolio or track record. I do appear in an online dilemma here. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 09:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are projects besides the English Wikipedia: simple wiki is one that comes to mind if you want to write. Star Mississippi 12:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on this, there are other Wikimedia projects by the same non-profit that runs Wikipedia. Projects such as commons:Main Page, simple:Main Page, wikisource:Main Page, etc. The complete list is at Special:SiteMatrix. A common pathway to getting unblocked on English Wikipedia is to behave well on other projects in the Wikimedia movement such as these. Each project is autonomous and has its own rules, blocks, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @Novem Linguae and @Star Mississippi. I managed to find time to have a look at/through the Wikimedia, the Wikisource, the Simple Wiki here and at/through other Wikimedia wikis in here. They seem pretty much user-friendly like on here, but like a readily available training-ground for good editorial competence on here. So I’ll be happy to take some considerable amount of time off here to see how/what I may contribute over on those (other) Wikis. I can appreciate that as Admins, you both alongside other admins have to abide by the edit-restriction rules on here, but have (somewhat) encouraged me to focus on other Wiki projects for now. And hopefully this current block/restrction on me, proves a long-term blessing in disguise. Regards, – Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If this user is unblocked (not endorsing their request btw), I strongly suggest an indefinite topic ban from all WP:GENSEX pages, since their comments about sex workers such as this female subject isn’t (that) societally important/respected/valuable and there’s nothing whatsoever inspirational/respected/valued about such lewd antics suggest they are incapable of editing neutrally in that contentious topic area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf, you clearly took my comments there, out of context. I’ve never bashed any public figure on here before, and I wasn’t even bashing her as a person, so there was no ad hominem attack from me at/to her. I was specifically talking about the acts that she claims to have committed. I am from the same nation that she grew up in, and I was trying to share what the common thought is from her local government, concerning how her acts have been taken/viewed in the/their society. And I was also sharing what many other media personalities, interviewers or critics of the subject, have openly said concerning her revelations, and was not necesarily referring to her as a person. But I understand, you managed to misconstrue the intent behind my comments, to land me in hot water, which wasn’t fair play. Anyways I sure do apologize, if it came off as if I attacked/bashed the subject as a person independent of her actions, only. –Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 18:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said that reliable sources were not needed because a female subject, whose gender you went out of your way to mention several times, was not societally important. That's not what I call neutral or constructive editing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, what I meant by that was instead of us desperately looking for reliable sources in/on this list here to help find or look for an authentic birthdate source concerning the subject, that we could instead rely on the readily available WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB posts/interviews that she had already given, since information in/from those posts/interviews were indeed from the horse’s mouth. Secondly, when referring to her (the subject), I kept interchanging between “subject” and “female subject”, because whenever I was putting forth an opinion/response (to you particularly in that closed/archived thread here), I always wanted the main centre of attention regarding the conversation to remain on her, because if you remember I gave analogies regarding other public figures in entertainment like Cardi B and Dr. Dre, so whenever I’d say “female subject”, I typically hyperlinked it to that subject being discussed. Now I guess you could say I went a bit overboard to quote what other media personalities, interviewers or members of the government have said about the subject’s actions societally, but I didn’t mean for it to look as if those were my thoughts towards her personally, outside of her work. So as I said, I apologize, if those edits by means of external comments or quotes, didn’t come out as constructive. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 19:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When quoting people directly, it's customary to use quotation marks and to say whom you are quoting. You didn't do that. How is anyone supposed to know those weren't just your own opinions? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand @Sangdeboeuf, the question you have poised. At the time, throughout our lengthy back and forth conversations alongside other editors/users, I was just trying to get my points/responses accross as swiftly as possible, without paying attention to how any potential external quotes/comments might come out accross to other editors/users like yourself, reading. I admit that your comment at the end here took me aback, but I didn’t address it right there and then because I didn’t think you’d escalate it. But in hindsight, I should have made my clarification/stance right there and then. —Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 19:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should have. Especially after receiving a contentious topics alert in June 2024 (over a year ago) telling you to use caution and to edit carefully and constructively in regard to BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said it was over a year ago, but these things can easily slip off one’s radar, causing oneself to not avoid making silly mistakes. You’ve been on this platform (perhaps actively) for over a decade and I’ve been on here only for a couple of years. Perhaps before/by the time I become (close to) a seasoned Wikipedian like you, I’ll be much more readily aware of easily walking on any eggshells by means of editing. –Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole purpose here seems to be adding trivia to biographical articles, and you've been warned multiple times to follow BLP policy. If you find it that difficult to remember, then you may lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding trivia to biographical articles (like a lot of users/editors also do), is one aspect of what I like doing. I also like reverting vandalism and fixing typos and grammar mistakes across all articles on Wikipedia for now, though eventually that may shift, as I gain more editorial experience on here. For example, in your over a decade’s worth of time on here, I’d assume that there are certain editorial pieces/niches/interests that appeal to you more than others. But whilst I agree that competence is required on here, and despite being educated, I think we’re all different and do/remember different things at our pace, especially as we all likely have other (major) commitments outside of this platform. —Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were reminded about that notice less than four months ago. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hiya. I got an email stating that I was eligible to vote in the Wikimedia Foundation 2025 Board of Trustees election, and (as a result of it) eventually remembered that I had been clumsily blocked on here, back in the last summertime. So before I may potentially vote, I decided that I would go ahead to bravely appeal my indefinite block since relevant advice/encouragement was given to me regarding eventually overcoming my current editorial block. So I realise that some months have passed since I last was able to edit on here, and I was advised by senior admins (like @Novem Linguae and @Star Missisippi) back then to potentially focus on other Wikimedia projects temporarily – which I have obliged to do with the Simple English Wiki. Looking back, that was a good and recommendable idea, and I have since made several BLP edits on there with relevant/reliable BLP references/sources given/included by/from me – something that I guess I have somewhat struggled to imbibe on here fully previously – and/but I managed to create this article page here, for the first time across the Wikimedia projects, to help improve my editorial competence and confidence. I used to and thought it was a good thing to skilfully rely on synthesis and original research to add or restore disputed content to biography articles (perhaps because I would see other editors doing it on here widespread and going unpunished), but I believe I have editorially matured since I last was able to edit on here, and promise to continue the good faith/progress I have made over on the Simple English Wiki, on here as well. Once unblocked on here, I plan to still continue working on the Simple English Wiki, whilst I gradually phase in editing on here partially (and eventually majorly) alongside as well. I also trust that an unblock on here can/shall/will be a (sort of like) clean slate for me to finally actualise my editorial potential too, without breaching any further editorial rules or triggering any block sanctions in the process. Moreover, I understand that I wasn’t blocked for deliberately harming the English Wikipedia, but that it was majorly as a result of a precaution to help me gain relevant competence before safely returning. Thus, since I last edited on here, I have rightly not even edited using any IP address (when I easily could have) because I believe it was the right thing for me to solely focus or learn the ropes on another Wikimedia project. Likewise, I have not created and do not want to create another Wikipedia account or to adopt any other Wikipedia username, as I would indeed be happy to build up a positive long-term reputation with my current username (being) Diademchild – particularly since I would hate for my only account on here to become abandoned (prematurely, at the least). Notwithstanding, I have already identified some topics and areas to edit/expatiate on here (although I still intend on fixing typos, reverting vandalism and/or updating short descriptions as a WikiGnome), and/but would be willing to explore them once unblocked. I have genuine remorse, for any blocking issues caused or sanctions incurred by/from me previously on here in the past, and as a result I may be willing to also donate to the Wikimedia Foundation as goodwill towards how all the projects are (or have been) ran (particularly on here in my absence). Nevertheless, please feel free to ask me any unblocking questions (prior) in return. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Having reviewed your track record at Simple English Wikipedia, I think you need a longer/stronger track record of contributions, noting that you have only made 37 edits, received two warnings concerning sourcing on a BLP in August and were using IMDb on a BLP [10] as recently as mid-September. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 17 October 2025 (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.

Hiya, @Rosguill. So how many contributions do you reckon I need to make, or how long do I need to spend collaborating on/with the Simple English Wiki, to consider gradually returning back on here? Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 16:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to give an exact number: both time and edit count matter, as does quality and size of the edits. Reviewing your Simple English Wikipedia contributions to date, what I saw was:

1. You immediately made questionable edits to a BLP that were reverted in August, and which seem to be consistent with the issues on English Wikipedia, and you were warned about it explicitly on your talk page.
2. You then made a smattering of relatively trivial edits to BLPs that seem ok throughout September, but there's a bad edit to Mia Khalifa in the middle there
3. In October you created two stubs about schools that were not compliant with Simple Wikipedia's rules (although not in a way that is actually an issue on English Wikipedia)

To overcome that plus the extent of disruption prior on English Wikipedia, I'd want to see something more along the lines of several hundred edits at minimum, without problems, and ideally including many edits that are more substantial than just updating infoboxes and minor copyediting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so:

1. To your first point, I was still getting used to working my way around, and hadn't fully grasped the rules regarding information being brought from here, and taken over there. So that was a genuine mistake.

2. To your second point, that particular edit to Mia Khalifa over there wasn't bad per se. I simply fixed the faulty infobox code for her birthdate, then proceeded to add to the original reference that was and still remains there, to further support the correct factual information in/of her infobox, that is widely publicised. But it's fine, I respect your opinion.

Moreover, what I think I'll do is make about 500 contributions over there, and once done with no problems incurred, I may reappeal on here for an unblock (and perhaps tag you in it)?

— Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 17:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a decent approach, although I almost always defer repeat appeals to the next admin, so you can skip the ping. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to clarify, my concern with the Mia Khalifa edit is that you cited IMDB, which is firmly established as an unreliable source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I was of the assumption that (and initially operating on the notion of) the Simple English Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia having independent editorial rules that govern them, meaning reliable sources on here, don't/wouldn't necessarily need to be (considered) wholly reliable to be added/included anywhere over there. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]