I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nawab Sheikh Abdullah. Thanks! Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 21:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://graphsearch.epfl.ch/fr/concept/10118594. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Nawab Sheikh Abdullah may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the . or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Royiswariii Talk! 10:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theditorial2.0! 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! Royiswariii Talk! 10:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Toumbofnawabsheikhabduallh.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nawabganjpalace2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nawabganjpalace.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Nawab Fazl Ali Khan. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK Theditorial2.0 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Qasimabad Estate, you may be blocked from editing.
It was clearly explained, above, that you should not add links to draft articles, but you have continued doing so. Please stop - Arjayay (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did linked some pages to draft page , but now I want to delete that draft as I have created a new wikipedia page. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2024 (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 Significa liberdade was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

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:Nawab Sheikh Abdullah 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.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theditorial2.0, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qasimabad Estate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mau. 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) 19:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theditorial2.0. Thank you for your work on Hetampur, Chandauli. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please add a ref for the population from the official indian census site

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Raja Dham Dev Rao. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theditorial2.0. Thank you for your work on Baraura, Ramgarh,. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please add a ref for the population from the official indian census site

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theditorial2.0. Thank you for your work on Biur, Chainpur. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please add a ref for the population from the official indian census site

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theditorial2.0. Thank you for your work on Daudpur, Ghazipur. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please add a ref for the population from the official indian census site

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dildarnagar Kamsar, 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. - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maharaja Kam Dev Misir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Dharavn, Chandauli. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:18, 21 January 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 RangersRus was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please do not use unreliable WP:RAJ sources. Please find reliable sources with significant coverage and if using Google Books, please add page numbers and inline citation for verification.

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:Dharavn, Chandauli 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.

RangersRus (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Purani Badi Masjid2.jpeg.

This file is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the file description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 13:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i took a pic of the image from a book name evolution of spatial organizations and clan settlements in the middle Ganga valley, and colourised it using AI . Theditorial2.0 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of this book are protected by copyright law. — Ирука¹³ 09:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Kumsarmap.jpg.

This file is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the file description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 09:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theditorial2.0. Thank you for your work on Karma, Dildarnagar. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please add a ref for the population from the official Indian census site.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theditorial2.0. Thank you for your work on Kanakpur Gokul, Zamania. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please add a ref for the population from the official Indian census site

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has no population, it's just a inhabited hamlet Theditorial2.0 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inhabited means there are people living there. Uninhabited means it has no population. If it is uninhabited now, then it must have had a population some time back. Please add a ref to an older census which mentions this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the PDFs available about the population by village in Ghazipur district, but from as early as the 1951 census to the 2011 census, the place is uninhabited. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Assuming it was mentioned in the 1951 census, you can say that "this hamlet has been uninhabited since at least 1951". Add a ref to the 1951 census which mentions this village's name and you are good to go. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this tree copied from somewhere, or made using multiple sources? I don't see any sources which should be mentioned in either case. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not copied from some where but yeas , you may say it is made using many sources , I'll add info about sources Theditorial2.0 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you look at the other reports you will see that a single line starting with links is wanted. Vandalism is defined at WP:VAND and, by that definition, has to be obvious so not much explanation should be needed. I have fully protected Raja Rao Dham Dev Sikarwar for a week to stop the edit war. Why did you revert the IP's comment at the article talk page? The IP provided plenty of explanations for their edits. Their edit summaries and comments need to be engaged with at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Sikarwar Rajputs. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and Please add inline citations to all the exceptional claims you have made here and remove the promotional tone before moving it back to the mainspace.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop asking me to "look into the repeated vandalism by this user and consider blocking them" - I am not an admin, so I can't block anyone
Provided you/other editors have warned the user sufficiently, you should make a formal request at WP:AIV - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sikarwar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 2405:201:6006:9188:D8E2:E645:59B7:8F42 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted more than couple of your changes as they were based on dubious sources and looked like a POV. Instead of Edit warring, discuss your changes on Talk page of article. 2405:201:6006:9188:D8E2:E645:59B7:8F42 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sikarwar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on one or more other accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account. JBW (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theditorial2.0 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 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).

Theditorial2.0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked under the assumption that I am a sockpuppet of another user. However, I would like to clarify that I am not associated with the other account(s) in question. I am an independent editor, and any similarities in editing patterns are purely coincidental. I understand Wikipedia's policies on sockpuppetry and take them very seriously. My intention has always been to contribute positively and adhere to the platform's guidelines. I kindly request a review of my case, and I am happy to provide any additional information to verify my identity or prove that I am not related to the suspected accounts. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've previously admitted to evading a block. This is clearly a good block. Yamla (talk) 17:21, 27 January 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.

Dear JBW, I would like to respectfully request a review of the deletion of the Wikipedia page on Raja Narhar Khan. I believe this figure is notable, with a significant historical impact, and the page met the necessary guidelines. As a dedicated editor, I have made over two thousand contributions to Wikipedia, including many factual corrections. I put considerable effort into creating this page with proper citations, and I feel that it reflects the historical significance of Raja Narhar Khan and his community. If the page was deleted due to any formatting or citation issues, I am happy to provide additional reliable sources and make the necessary improvements. I would appreciate your understanding and reconsideration of this deletion, and I would like to work with you to resolve this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Theditorial2.0 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW, I find your process to be inappropriate, what ever information I added was through available amount of information available, I saw in many pages you undid all my edits. There was a lot correct information I added, and also corrected so many information, on wikipedia pages, which were given wrong previously. It will be better for you to first check what you have done. You even removed the pages I made, which were totally correct according to wikipedia guidelines. I would like to request you to again make those pages, and add correct information. You cannot spread fake information about places, towns and villages, by just adding allegations on me. With this I would also like you to recreate the page on Raja Narhar Khan, which you deleted. You cannot delete a wikipedia page on a person, who was popular and is respected by a large amount of community numbering in thousands. I'll be waiting for you reply and hope that you'll consider. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JBW, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to discuss the recent deletion of the Wikipedia page I created about Raja Narhar Khan, a historical figure of significant importance to a large community, with more than a hundred thousand descendants. The page was intended to document the life and legacy of Raja Narhar Khan, whose contributions and historical relevance are tied to the history of Dildarnagar Kamsar. I believe this figure meets the notability criteria due to their historical significance and influence. Could you kindly clarify the specific reasons for the deletion? If the issue lies in the lack of proper citations or formatting, I am willing to revise the content and provide additional reliable sources to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I sincerely hope you can reconsider the deletion or allow me the opportunity to address the issues and recreate the page in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theditorial2.0 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The technical data show substantial amounts of WP:LOUTSOCK. The data for the suspected sockmaster account is too stale for comparison. --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yamla, thank you for your response. I would like to respectfully clarify that I have not engaged in any form of sockpuppetry. I am an independent editor, and any similarities to other accounts are purely coincidental. I understand and fully respect Wikipedia’s policies, including WP:SOCK, and I assure you that my contributions are solely my own. If there are technical details or patterns that seem to align with those of other accounts, I would appreciate the opportunity to address them or provide further clarification. I kindly request that this case be reviewed further, as I believe this is a misunderstanding. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, [Your Username] Theditorial2.0 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the convenience of any administrator reviewing the unblock request:

The user of this account has openly stated that this account has been used for block evasion, as can be seen by comparing this diff: [1] & this editing history: [2]. Of course they could have been lying when they said that, but I seen no reason to think so, and a good deal of reason to think not; see, for example, this editor interaction analysis: [3]. In any case, even if both the claim of using a sockpuppet and the behavioural evidence are false, there are plenty of other reasons for retaining the block, such as combative and uncooperative attitude to other editors, edit-warring, ownership attitude to articles. JBW (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that in anger, I'm not the orginal creator of the page, but I have added so much on the page, and have tried to do my best. It's a very obvious thing, you removed whatever I added , which took me so long and considerable amount of effort. You have just being so rude to me now. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its very sad to see, that wikipedia administrators don't value the effort and the time put in to edits and add information on different pages, on wikipedia. We people are making account on wikipedia to bring out the correct information, I'm not against anyone or any article, on wikipedia, but whatever I made is been deleted, it's really frustrating and disheartening. I who edits more than two thousand times is being treated as if I'm a illegal person or something like that. I belong to that place that's why I'm editing, about it, on different wikipedia pages. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a allegation on me, I feel I have to report against the action of you all. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBWYou are even not replying to any of my messages and throwing fake allegations one me. I don't have any other account other than, my current account on whose talk page I'm writing. You are throwing a fake allegation one me of Sockpuppetry. I'm kindly requesting you to unblock me.Theditorial2.0 (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your comment about not answering your questions, Wikipedia is not the whole of my life, and such time as I find to spend on it is divided among different tasks. I could easily have given you a one sentence answer in a matter of a few seconds, but I chose instead to wait until I had time to give you a more extensive reply, because, rightly or wrongly, I hoped that would be more helpful to you.

I will try to clarify some of the points raised by the messages you have posted. I invite you to think about what I write, and consider whether any of it may help you; of course it's up to you to choose to do so or not do so.

For the moment, I will leave aside the question of whether you have used sockpuppets, and look at some other aspects of what you have said. In your messages above, you use the words "anger", "frustrating", and "disheartening". Indeed, it does look as though those words describe some of your feelings as you hsve been editing; your edit-warring, together with the talk page comments you posted, give the impression that you were frustrated at seeing edits which you believed were correct being reverted, and they show a determination to make sure that what you feel is the right version will stay. Unfortunately, the way that Wikipedia works is such that anyone who does a substantial amount of editing will at times see what they believe is correct replaced by a version they believe is wrong. That has happened to me hundreds of times, probably thousands. The difference is that, when that happens, however strongly I feel that what is happening is wrong, I sigh, and move on: I don't battle it out endlessly, and I absolutely do not get angry. If you can, you need to try to learn to do that. It may be that, with the best will in the world, you can't do that, because you don't have the temperament to do so; if so, then it may be that Wikipedia isn't the right place for you.

You say that I have been "throwing a fake allegation one [sic] [you] of Sockpuppetry". Really, if you tell a lie and someone else believes you and treats what you said as true, and you suffer as a result, whose fault is that? Showing anger towards me about that, as though it is my fault, makes no sense.

Wikipedia policy is that any editing by an editor evading a block may be reverted, and any page created may be deleted. If you are eventually unblocked, you will be free to try to get that policy changed if you don't like it, but as long as it remains policy, getting angry with someone for implementing that policy makes no sense: it is very much in the spirit of "if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger". If your anger is based on the view that the policy doesn't apply because you aren't evading a block, then I can only repeat "whose fault is that?"

If you wish to be unblocked you will need to persuade an administrator that you will edit in suitable ways, including collaborating in a friendly and collegiate spirit. I suggest you re-read your messages above, and consider whether they are likely to encourage that view.

OK, now for the issue of sockpuppetry. A CheckUser has stated that you have engaged in "substantial amounts of WP:LOUTSOCK" (i.e. the equivalent of sockpuppetry but using a mixture of editing with and without using an account, rather than using multiple accounts). Whether you have also abused multiple accounts or not, need to address that if you are to stand any reasonable chance of being unblocked. Unfortunately that may also make it more difficult to persuade an administrator that you were lying when you claimed to have abused multiple accounts.

It has taken me a significant amount of time and effort to draft, review, and edit this message. I was under no obligation whatever to do so; I have done it purely because I hope that, if you read it and think constructively about what I have said, it may be helpful to you. Whether you do so is, of course, your choice. JBW (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate the time and effort you took to address my concerns. I would like to clarify that I have not engaged in sockpuppetry or disruptive editing, and I believe there may have been a misunderstanding. If there is specific evidence, I would like to review it and provide clarification. My intention is to contribute positively and adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I acknowledge that my tone may have seemed frustrated, and I apologize if it appeared uncollaborative. Moving forward, I will work on being patient and collaborative, discuss changes on talk pages, avoid edit-warring, and respect all policies. I sincerely request another opportunity to edit constructively and will work closely with administrators to ensure compliance. Thank you again for your guidance. Theditorial2.0 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will remove the block to give you another chance. I hope you will now be able to edit collaboratively, without return of the same problems (obviously, as that's why I'm unblocking) but please be careful, because if you are blocked a second time it may be more difficult to get unblocked. JBW (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I am mentioning that you also posted UTRS appeal #99875. JBW (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]