Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to .
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sam Sailor 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nabi Tajima. 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. Sam Sailor 18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats mean nothing to me you don't edit anything longevity related so you don't know what's going on before you say I don't either I do I've been to several sites about longevity Wwew345t (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Julie Winnefred Bertrand 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. Technopat (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes I'm sure the people who haven't edited on the topic in 5+ years will care enough to agrue Wwew345t (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joan Riudavets. Technopat (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sailor Sam reverted my pages because in his opinion they shouldn't have been restored even tthough they didn't go through a afd very fair for me to get blocked Wwew345t (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes very fair I restore pages that weren't deleted probably then Sam salior reverts all of,them for the sole pourpose of i agree with it and I get blocked Wwew345t (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wwew345t! You are currently involved in major edit-warring, for which there is a serious risk of your account being blocked. Whatever the issues at stake, please desist in this behaviour and engage other users in meaningful discussion to reach a case-by-case consensus. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sam salior edited 0 pages on longeivty until he reverted all my edits half of them weren't even deleted properly (therefore should be restored) Wwew345t (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) how fun as soon as I restore pages that people don't really edit a bunch of people who probably didn't even know the topic exist dogpile on me[reply]

amazing how quickly some person who has no clue about the topic he is editing in reverts all my edits of pages that weren't deleted properly because of his opinion and I get blocked Wwew345t (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled, as per the block template, to appeal said block. However, please be advised that your edits here since then may lead to undesired consequences. Technopat (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its the truth Sam salior had no basis for reverting most of my edits other then his opinion Wwew345t (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment.--Technopat (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im not looking to start a edit war some pages were redericted without a afd (and several were deleted that shouldn't have been) and I'm trying to restore them so if it must happen it can be done properly Wwew345t (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat Wwew345t (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...... Wwew345t (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat I'm attempting to talk peacefullly with you it doesn't make sense to keep a 5 year old redercit because i need a consensus when there wasn't a discussion about adding said readerect in the article Wwew345t (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat ok then so for some reason your gonna support someone's vandalism of my restorations of pages on the grounds of i agree with it because I need a consensus even though there wasn't a consensus on the redirect (therefore said redercit shouldn't be there) and when I ask for a discussion with you instead of doing that you very 'civally' threaten to have me blocked. Wwew345t (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please block technopat he his undoing all my edits for no reason and is refusing to talk to me @admin Wwew345t (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did do something agressive to start but I stopped in a attempt to make peace he continued to threaten me and then ignored me refusing to talk to me about the issue (which was me restoring pages that eere redercited without a afd) Wwew345t (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im not trying to do a edit war but I'm so confused because it seems to me like I'm being called out for just trying to restore pages that were deleted/redercited without a afd can a @admin tell me what I'm doing wrong? Wwew345t (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can someone tell me how to start a discussion to restore a page that got deleted by a afd? 5 years ago some editors dogpiled on longevity pages and I think some of them could be expanded to be more detailed and cited if they are restored Wwew345t (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your messages on my talk page. As for your first comment, regarding "talking", I have already pointed out how and where to talk. Regarding the feeling you have that I'm "messing" with you, I can assure you that nothing is further from my mind. I value my time too much to waste it "messing" with anyone.

As for your second message, I'm not "blaming" you for an edit war. I pointed out the facts that you were engaged in one and it turns out that you are repeating the same behaviour that got you blocked for edit-warring. I have explained to you how to solve the issues involved. Whether or not you choose to do so is entirely up to you. Technopat (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see now that you have left me several messages on this talk page and elsewhere. Half of them I simply don't understand. However, as some of them are downright rude and you have simply continued with your edit warring, my original thought of asking you to explain what you mean has since given way to not wanting to bother. The bottom line of all of the above: you go your way and please do not bother to contact me again. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Oldest people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DerbyCountyinNZ I know you dont like me but the first think that the other user in the edit war did was immediately disregard what you said and re insert ille Ciocan Wwew345t (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we have some diffs here? You can make a null edit and put them in the edit summary. Polygnotus (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Oldest_people. Polygnotus (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tekla Juniewicz Inah Canabarro Lucas Edie Ceccarelli Elizabeth Francis and Ethel Caterham have all been created after that was added and none of them have been deleted most of these have survived afd so I simply thought that it doesn't make sense to include that when every instance in the last 2 years has been to sustain the article Wwew345t (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

???? What the hell is this Wwew345t (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How am I a sock????? This is so random and unfair Wwew345t (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"obvious behavior match??? How? Because I undleted a single page? Wwew345t (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wwew345t (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to point out that I looked at the user I'm allegedly a sock of if look at the investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EpsomGentleman/Archive (which I would like to point out that I was not even mentioned in it nor does there seem to have been any actual investigation into whether or not I'm an alt) His Edit History and my edit history we dont edit the same pages its not even close to the same topics (he mostly edited pages relating to britin I mostly edit pages regarding the oldest people or supercentenarians) which brings up another point If he edits pages mostly relating to britin and his socks accounts all of names relelating to Britian. Then it would follow that he is probably British that's another thing we dont have in common as I am american my username also doesnt match any of his usrname structures as the first 3 letters in my username is a reference to wwe an American company while his socks are usally something british sounding Furthermore he and his socks were banned for adding unsourced content something I have never done (you can check my edit history) so I'm not sure how I'm and "Obvious behavior match" to a guy i have nothing in commen with and who didnt edit in the same topics as me isnt even the same nationality as me and whose edits are completely different Structurally then mine also he has never edited in a afd while I have participated in a couple so in short I couldn't be more unlike then the user I'm supposedly a sock of so this "behavioral match" makes absolutely no sense futhmore I have attempted to contact the blocking admin asking him why he thinks I'm a sock and he has not answered

Accept reason:

This request has been open for nearly two months. The blocked user has made a seemingly reasonable argument that they are not a sock. There is no SPI for this user. CU has found no connection. The logged reason is that there is an "obvious behavioral match" but other admins are having trouble seeing it. The blocking admin provided some sort of private evidence to reviewing admin that they did not find compelling enough to decline the request. It seems the case for socking is weak and I am therefore unblocking. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 19:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your chance to defend yourself is now. If you have anything else to add to your request, please do. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured the when tuing so it can be read better I'm just not sure how I'm a sock of someone I have nothing in commen with Wwew345t (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hold this can get resolved because I've never heard of the guy I'm allegedly a alt of Wwew345t (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill: Could you provide any insight into why this user was blocked as a sock of EpsomGentleman? Looking at the Editor Interaction Utility, it appears they have some shared interests with Epsom Gentleman's socks AmbroseGreypaw and London2024, but there's no SP log of this case. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to respond to comments like these? Because I'd like to point out that I've only edited half of the pages listed on the link provided Wwew345t (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade, can you shoot me an email so that I can reply? I’m not seeing the “email this user” on your user page and I would like to provide the relevant evidence confidentially for security through obscurity reasons, as the affected pages have seen a lot of persistent sockpuppetry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence... I barely edit on wikipedia in tje first place Wwew345t (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cant you just check IPS or something how can I be a sock of a guy who's not even the same nationality as me Wwew345t (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill: Email sent. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade, replied last night. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rosguill! I've received the email and reviewed the evidence. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that proves I'm an alt? I havent even seen it Wwew345t (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need more proof that I'm not an alt? I use my email for more then just this site you know I am logged onto other websites with this in where I am an active engager Wwew345t (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such as my tapatalk account Wwerocks245 Wwew345t (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is still open... I haven't even seen the evidence that supposedly proves I'm a sock of a complete stranger Wwew345t (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now? Does this just stay open Wwew345t (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Sorry you've been waiting. I personally do not feel comfortable either declining or accepting this unblock request based on the evidence provided. If another administrator would like to take a look, feel free. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait that's it? I was already reprimanded for reversing a deleted article with a afd check my history I stopped doing that at one point and would only underlie articles that didnt have a afd done with that with one exepctiob most of my edits are something completely different anyway I though there was more "evidence" but it seems that itz just one edit that just so happened that the guy also edited Wwew345t (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited like 2 pages that the other guy too its ridiculous to call me a sock just for that if we had more in commen that would make sense but nothing has been shown otherwise I've edited way more pages then that Wwew345t (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what I'm gathering

The evidence I'm a "sock"

I happened to have edited 2 pages that the guy did

Evidence im not a sock

I've edited way more then those 2pages

My edits on the other pages arent even remotely close to what he did

I'm not even the same nationality as him (all signs point to him being british)

I've participated in afd discussions and debates over pages in which I presented reasonable arguments

Am I missing something cause it seems to me like thus whole thing is just a extremely rushed assumption based on one or 2 edits I've made out of like a hundred Wwew345t (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{checkuser needed}} Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean Wwew345t (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for running that it should help prove that my ip is nowhere close to the guy I'm allegedly a sock of and clead this misunderstanding up Wwew345t (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the data I have available (which includes historicals), I would probably say Wwew345t is technically  Unrelated to EpsomGentleman if I were asked for a check today. I wouldn't even entertain anything more than possible, and probably not even that. Izno (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wwew345t (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second Izno's findings - this acccount has no technical connection to EpsomGentleman's known socks. People move house, change internet provides and buy new devices, of course, so a negative CU finding is never definitive - Rosguill, could you forward me a copy of that behavioural evidence for consideration? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get the skepticism and it's fair but if you run a ip check I'm confident you'll find that not only do I not live near the guy I'm accused of being a sock of we probably don't even live in the same country Wwew345t (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your recreated of Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant), which was reduced to a redirect after being nominated for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant). The nomination was discussed by the community and closed by an independent administrator. If you have concerns with these closes, you will need to direct them to the administrators involved in the respective closures. Your next recourse is WP:Deletion review if you disagree with the finding of consensus to redirect by the closing admins. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear bias with the nominator and that is the only time one of those afds had more then 3 people in it Wwew345t (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a commubity thats a biased editot trying to force his views even if they violate precedence Wwew345t (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And looking closer, WP:Articles for deletion/Tina Wesson had one keep !vote, and that was from a user now blocked for sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a matter to discuss with the closing administrator and, if that discussion proves fruitless, pursue a deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression you ckuld only do a deletion review shortly after the afd itself Wwew345t (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, incorrect. You can start a deletion review anytime especially if your alternative approaches fail. FWIW, I don't have bias against Survivor winners but had concerns about their compliance with the project's policies on biographies of living persons , like ones notable for just one event, regardless of amount of appearances. Returnees are no exceptions either, to put this another way. One thing clear: trying to unilaterally challenge the AFD closure made by an admin, especially by undoing the redirection/re-targeting of a page, would backfire and worsen your standing... or reputation. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but helen glover is notable enough for a oage and she didnt win Wwew345t (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I dont have any bias" your argument was refusted several times in affds were bothered to show up because your argument is subjective they won a season of one of tje most wacyhed shows in america and youd like to pretend they werent based on your opinion i thibk im justifed in challenging afd that was attended by 1-2 people sometimes only you i feel loke if you put them up for afd abd people showed up youd find yourself in rhe miniorty but people didnt show up because no one really thkigut someone would go along and say "i thibk all fhese pages arent notable because i said so ill try to delete them all!" Theres a reason these pages have been pages for years you just cant see it Wwew345t (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wwew345t. Responding here to keep it central. I believe consensus was clear, but you’re welcome to file a Deletion Review as @C.Fred and @George Ho noted Star Mississippi 15:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are more keep votes? Wwew345t (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And his ratonial for delelting the page is afds that he started that were poorley attended you cant say hes nlt biased when he pit almost every winner up for afd Wwew345t (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i thibk im justifed in challenging afd that was attended by 1-2 people. This kind of approach is something you'd rather not try again without performing a proper process; it would lead you into more troubles, otherwise.

I wonder whether you know how to file a WP:Deletion review. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't, frankly, judging from your writing, editing, and approaches especially toward others and me. George Ho (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your admittance that you don't know how to file a WP:Deletion review. —George Ho (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can come to a reasonable end to this Wwew345t (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like sayinf they fail the critera you listed is a stretch it says they have to be low profile and they certainly arent low profile individuals (most of them anyway) furthermore the policy on pages says tv characters with a major role get oayes yes? I would consider the winner of one of the most watched reality shows in the world which has spawned many spinoffs in other countries something that fits Wwew345t (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youll note that whenever the argument i just listed was brought up the consus would be to "keep" i gst that you dont think its notable enough but i feel like your downplaying just how big survivor is and how many people watch/read/care about it Wwew345t (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhapes i was wrong to call you biased but i do think your reasoning is rather flawed and negates the impact that survivor has Wwew345t (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“There are more keep votes” does not mean there’s consensus to keep. For tech reasons, I cannot open the DRV I odn’t think but happy for one to be opened Star Mississippi 18:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@(user of this talk page) Please WP:Deletion review#Instructions and learn them properly. If you're still having issues with the instructions, you can ask anybody willing to help you. (If not me, then how about anyone more experienced and willing to help you?) For goodness sake, why not test just one article before any other articles? George Ho (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" what ablut tyson Apostol is a concensus? It failed a afd attened by no one and poof! Deleted with nl problem and when i call attetion to the issue and say "hey how can we say this page should merit being re directed when there was 0 discussion on it" im being "unreasonable" and "troll" it shouldnt be hell to un delete a article thats had literally 0 actual procces on deletion and it is Wwew345t (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been offered extensive advice. That it is not your preferred outcome doesn't mean it's not consensus. YOu're being disruptive. Please stop and engage with the community Star Mississippi 01:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't I seen you use commas, periods, and other punctuations? From what I see, you've made run-ons and questionable grammar. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your attempts to ignore the DRV results of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 24. It may not be necessary to you, but the community didn't support restoring the article back. Fortunately, I was able to move Tyson Apostol into a Draft:Tyson Apostol. I really hope you work on the draft instead of moving it back into main namespace, all right? Otherwise, let's see how admins handle this at WP:ANI. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://theallanaguirre.medium.com/tyson-apostol-is-gods-gift-to-the-challenge-451b5599fffc found this nice source covering his challenge appearance and it's secondary too Wwew345t (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a good source at all. Per consensus WP:MEDIUM, as a self-published source, Medium blogs are "generally unreliable" unless the blogger is, by consensus, a subject-matter expert or for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Also, "Medium should never be used for third-party claims about living persons." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True so i endeavord to find more sources and i have added several new ones as well as beefing up the section his challenge appearance Wwew345t (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disruptive. Please consider this a final warning or you will be blocked @Wwew345t.

I have protected the redirect and move protected the draft to enforce AfC. Star Mississippi 02:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several secondary sources from desert news (a reliable source) to the Tocantins section Wwew345t (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per AFD discussion, I have reverted the Adelina Domingues page back into the redirect. Your edits weren't substantially different from the pre-AfD revision, and the AfD result shouldn't be treated as a "soft delete" but rather a redirect.

If you still have issues with the page's redirect status, please contact Jo-Jo Eumerus or take the matter to WP:DRV if you can.

I'm close to reporting you to WP:ANI after you've been drastically warned by Star Mississippi for your other attempts (to ignore or misinterpret AFD and/or DRV results). George Ho (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im restoring them because of recent afds and the fact that WOP pages arent deleted anymore Wwew345t (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what is becoming common, a previous AFD you ignored and then edit-warred to try and undo the result, has now been undone, this time Yukichi Chuganji without any fundamental changes that address any of the DELETE/REDIRECT votes. Consensus can change, of course, but not based simply on your affirmative declaration. I'll defer to Star Mississippi and George Ho given that they've already expressed concerns here, but short of any input from them, I think this is becoming an ANI issue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing those decisons on recent afds that diagree with the fudemtual argument of the afds from 8 years ago made by a group of peiple who were stuffing afd with deletion discussion on these pages i wouldnt defer to george ho as me and him are currently in a disuputr over an enterily different artcile category i wont restore them again but i would like to direct your attention to the fact that longeivty pages arent deleted anymore Edith Ceccarelli Lucile Randon Tekla Juniewicz so I do have a basis for saying the consensus on the subject changed as the "concerns" was being rhe oldest in a country isn't notable Wwew345t (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that when you disagree with a consensus, the proper response is to convince others and form a new consensus, while your response has been to take every opportunity to try and force your will over the existing consensus. The WP:IDHT energy is very strong. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, mass overriding consensus in other articles because you conclude that some other AFD discussion agreed with you is completely inappropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 14:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned multiple times and refuse to observe or respect consensus. As such, you have lost access to edit articles. You're welcome to make edit requests and work in draft space, but we were very close to a sitewide block, and further disruption will guarantee that. Star Mississippi 14:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You gave ne a warning this moring abd so far i have done nothing please dont make exusces Wwew345t (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sad how you value 8 yesr old deltaion discussions and editors with clear bias over keeping artices here Wwew345t (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you check out all the afds ive revereyed youll B see the same people putting the same articles up so sorry i stood up to BIAS and cabals and Wwew345t (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you multiple warnings long before this morning. Arguing about Bias and cabals will get you nowhere. Star Mississippi 15:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so basically you don't wanna see the truth. When someone puts the same page into afd again and again I'm pretty sure that's a bias they were also 8 years ago lol I reverted Aarne Arvonen a previously deleted page which was put into afd which is currently at 5 keep votes and 0 delete so I absolutely had a basis for saying the consensus has changed Wwew345t (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your essentially taking draconion methods of punishment because i reverted 8 year old afds that ive alreayd proven dont apply anymore lol Wwew345t (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

literally said I would stop lol Wwew345t (talk) 14:49, 6 February 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).

Wwew345t (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

yes I have un deleted some paged put in afd they were all either old afds based on arguments that no longer apply or poorly attened afd whenever someone pushed back i would stop i have also contributed helpfully in numoers afd a complete block on pages because I restored pages that were afd by a group of people who were stuffing pages into AFD (You can check the afd history if you don't belive me they put 15 pages on supercentarians in afd in one day is ridiculous. furthmore u restored a bunch of Survivor winner pages which were then reverted and the only one I continued to contest was one were no one attended the afd which means there was no actual consensus on it when the drv failed I tried to put it into mainspace which I admit was a mistake so when it was put into draftspace I didn't contest that ahd proceeded to improve the sourcing another reason why I restored the supercentenariab pages was due to there being no opposition to my restoration of other pages I restored from afd such as aarne Arvonen who was put into a afd which is overwhelming keep at the moment so I had a basis for claiming the consensus on the pages have changed as they have survived afd Wwew345t (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is all but incoherent and in any case, this does not convince me you are listening to what you've been told, will stop edit-warring, and plan to take a meaningfully different approach. Yamla (talk) 15:28, 6 February 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.

You are not permitted to modify or remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 6 February 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).

Wwew345t (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

perma banning me from editing all pages because i reverted 8 year old afds is draconian especially since one of them is gonna pass afd proving that the consensus changed i will endeavor to put them into drv to further prove my point

Decline reason:

You are partially blocked indefinitely not perma banned - there is a difference, see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. I disagree about the block being draconian. I am declining your request, because I am not convinced you will stop edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 6 February 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.

Wwew345t (talk) 15:37, 6 February 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).

Wwew345t (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I realize now that my actions have been rash and nasty from now on I will not attempt to restore an article that was AFD I will try to put it into a drv or improve the article in draft space

Decline reason:

This is certainly better than your previous requests, but per the below comments I think at this point your best path to getting unblocked is to show some constructive editing with the partial block still in place, then request again. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:57, 7 February 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.

Last one of the day if this one is declined then I will just wait a week or 2 before I try again

• The block does not prevent you from doing either one of these things, and actually doing so would build good will with the community. Star Mississippi 23:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to be able to editb said articles if they do get accepted which i wont be able to do Wwew345t (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I did not want it to come to this, but I see no other solution at this stage. The direct link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wwew345t_conduct_at_AfDs. Star Mississippi 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your gonna tban me then tban the guy whos doing literally the same exact thing i am but in favor of delelting the articles Wwew345t (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt have to come to this iudt because i am calling out bias Wwew345t (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to propose that, but be mindful of WP:ASPERSIONS (again) Star Mississippi 19:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really call them aspersions when the same guy is nominating the same oages for deletion sometines more then once i mean come on he literally noninated one page immediately aafter he failed to delte another i feel like your being incredibly unfair Wwew345t (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you please retract it so i can explain the accusation Wwew345t (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decline as it's time for a broader discussion. You're absolutely welcome to make your case at the discussion. Star Mississippi 19:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why dont you report the other guy too hes doing the exact same thing i am Wwew345t (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for a broader discussion on why the guy trying to keep articles is the one getting tbanned in the middle of a draft he's making and a afd discussion when the guy bludgeoning afds and stuffing them by continously nominating them gets off scot free Wwew345t (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to raise that in the thread. In fact you've been told before how to handle that. The fact that you have chosen not to is within your right but you don't dictate what someone else should report or not. Star Mississippi 19:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking a second look at the afd discussion that you allege im bludgeoning youll see its mostly a debate on what makes a primary source Wwew345t (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't discuss issues that affect the community as a whole via email as it's not fair or equitable. Please not email me again. Star Mississippi 20:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not why i was reported nor what their trying to accomplish Wwew345t (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are Jumping the gun i was specifically told to file a ani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Liz-20250215214800-Wwew345t-20250215203200 Wwew345t (talk) 01:35, 16 February 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).

Wwew345t (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

there is a active ani discussion regarding me in which there is a discussion on whether or not to TBAN me not give me a site wide block which has been advocated by no one ever furthmore i was specifically told https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Liz-20250215214800-Wwew345t-20250215203200 to make the "disruptive" ani report that caused me to get banned per afd discussion that wasnt even about me getting banned from Wikipedia

Decline reason:

To be blunt, your editing has been so disruptive I don't even think I can give you the standard offer. It's not that one edit to ANI. It's everything. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 16 February 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.

Wwew345t (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Among other things, Wwew345t, you're under a misapprehension. This isn't a courtroom where you can only be convicted of the charges of which you've been arraigned. Admins don't need to wait for permission from the community to issue a block; they're empowered to do so on their own, for what reasons, to what degree, and with what duration they feel necessary. Ravenswing 06:46, 16 February 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).

Wwew345t (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i am not requesting a full unblock just for the sitewide block to be amended to the partial block I have and a tban on entertainment AFDS i am currently working on a draft of a page i previously tried to prod restore and would like to atleast try to finish it and I would also like to atleast be able to try to make or improve other articles through draftspace where i will not be able to disruptively object to any denials or deletions of pages so i can show that i can make productive edits

Decline reason:

I agree with asilvering that the disruption has gone too far to return to the status quo ante and I am also not going to extend the standard offer. I recommend (1) taking a break from all wikis for a while and then (2) editing collaboratively, constructively, and non-disruptively on another Wikipedia project (such as Simple, Commons, or another language wiki) for at least 6 months. Then, come back and ask the community for another chance. No matter what, it will be an uphill battle to regain the community's trust and I find it unlikely that a single administrator will unblock you at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:42, 16 February 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.

Wwew345t (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be rejected i shall wait a few months for my next appeal per Wikipedia:Standard offer Wwew345t (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only administrator to address the standard offer rejected extending it. In any event, the standard offer is not "a few months" but 6 months, and the clock starts after your last edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for a complete unblock i am asking for it to be amended to the partial block i already had and a tban on the topic that i was reported for Wwew345t (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Reading Beans was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tyson Apostol and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wwew345t! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwew345t. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not my account lol i had o intentions of coming back to Wikipedia after i wad unfairly banned Wwew345t (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]