Hello, O1lI0, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia, O1lI0! Thank you for your contributions. I am 78.26 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi O1lI0! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you know how to use WP:TWINKLE to revert vandalism? click on "Preferences", and than click on "Gadgets", view on "Browsing" to find "Twinkle:", than click on the box to tick, scroll down to click on "Save". SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Uncle Milty. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Shane Black have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 181.88.184.210 removed content at Shane Black article on 17 May that you're restored actually was vandalism did by IP 2602:306:3088:9910:c096:e99d:d31b:2559, please be caution on that. Please also take note WP:NEIPIAV, the IP 181.88.184.210 removed content is not vandal. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--O1lI0 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're trying to do with your edits here. I have declined the CSD and contested the prod. If you believe the article to be non-notable, please take to AfD. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi O1lI0! You created a thread called How to confirm socks puppet? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Delivered by Tigraan-testbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Tigraan-testbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. This functionality is currently being tested. If you received this notification by error, please notify the bot's maintainer.

I've declined three CSD nominations you made under WP:G1 for user subpages. Firstly, G1 is for pages composed entirely of nonsense, which these were not. Secondly, G1 does not apply to pages in the user space. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got it.--O1lI0 (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted Template:Taxonomy/Australian under G7, but you marked it, as above, as G1 nonsense, which it was rather obviously not. I suppose it might have presented that way if you don't have any familiarity with template coding. Regardless, please be careful, because that is a rather bitey type of tagging to get wrong, and should not be done unless you are fairly sure you're correct when pressing save, which could not have been true here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

already self - reverted. We were editing within an hour of each other and I was kinda slow due to other work going on at the time. many thanks Edaham (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got it.--O1lI0 (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, O1lI0. I have never used any account other than this one or have performed any COI edits. I would like to know what makes you to think so. LUMINR (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page.--O1lI0 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP addresses you reported are all mobile addresses, and as such, they are subject to rapid change, so unless vandalism is actively occurring, blocks are useless. By DoRD

He is right.--O1lI0 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Multimedia. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] this is a slightly incorrect edit summary. I completely agree with your edit. That was exactly my thought when I made same edit first time. Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That page is not your talk page.--O1lI0 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next time please explain first.--O1lI0 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you back off Li Jiancheng for the time being? You are edit warring just as much as Elainr is, and they at least have the excuse of being new around here. Reverting every change they make and leaving strongly-worded warnings on their talk page is rather bitey, and to be honest your edit summaries, as well as the ill-informed AfD, betray the fact that you don't really understand the policies that you are trying to cite either.

They are trying to improve the article, so if you'll take my advice: assume good faith, give them some space to edit, and review their changes once they've finished. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i have removed the tags with request for photographs as they are already have photographs for Gleydson Carvalho André Chaumeix Louis Black ‎Clarence Black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.151.245 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please how can you blank an entire page here? Do you think you're deleting it or what? please explain.  — Ammarpad (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, O1lI0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "sock" here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1.Personal attack

(-165)‎ . . 1960 Chinese Mount Everest expedition ‎ (Undid revision 816274745 by O1lI0 (talk) Keeping attacking my edits on unrelated topics is just driven by bigotry. No need to cover up)

You don’t need to tell him about that—“edit warring” like this has already happened several times, and he knows that. It’s me that he is targeting, not the article itself.

A search into O1lI0's edit history ([2]) revealed a long history of edit conflicts with Chinese Wikipedians on a variety of unrelated topics. Some are reasonable indeed, but many more are not. Please consider this when viewing this report, thanks!

@NeilN:If my blocked means 3RR, I can accept it. But if it's blocked by a false personal attack I think you're insulting my personality. His personal attacks have made me think my personality has been insulted.

2.Sock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.58.225.201 Only 172.58.225.201.

3.A sentence should I use guy rather than guys.

Chaheel Riens misunderstood something because of this.

4.1 and 2 are different things.

The common point is to make me feel like my talk page becomes a junkyard. But 1 is not 2.O1lI0 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give him a chance, he clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. If he carries on doing it I will block him eventually, but we can only try. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dealing with this type of user is very tired and easily become the target of attack.

Recently there are others who attacked me with multiple IPs, and based on my tracking, they may come back.O1lI0 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit-warring while labelling good-faith edits as vandalism and restoring an AIV report after being told it was a content dispute. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:02, 7 January 2018 (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).

O1lI0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@HJ Mitchell:IP tracks and harass me and even to other wikis such as Japanese and Malay.The IP also goes to question my use of IP to do the same thing(like using sock) as he does.He just keeps track of my editors forcing me to edit the war.Is also in Japanese Wiki created fake content and was quickly removed. O1lI0 (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. You haven't given any reason to believe you aren't edit-warring. In fact, you acknowledge that you are. As such, the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2018 (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.

Hello O1lI0. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Dingdongblop/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G1 doesn't apply to userspace. This is the perfect place for such tests. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to inform you that the recent case request in which you were listed as party has been removed as frivolous. If you still believe that dispute resolution is needed, please read WP:DR and pick the venue that appears most suitable to you. --Kostas20142 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But when is it?

I have blocked INDICATOR2018 for three days, for edit-warring, editing to promote a point of view, and other disruptive editing. However, I advise you to think carefully about the way you have interacted with that editor, as your actions have not always been above reproach, and too could find yourself blocked if you are not careful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional control and belief conflict are always there.At the moment I can do only emotional control.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

After reviewing your contributions I have serious concerns about your competence in editing Wikipedia. As noted at ANI, your communication attempt with Chaheel Riens is very weak, and it seems your English is not at a sufficient level to be communicating effectively. This removal of a reliable source from the Goertek article, along with removal of text with an edit summary of removal of spam, for a company that is on Forbes Top 50 Asian companies list, and is regarded as a leading Chinese electronics company, is worrying. And your block threat to User:Le Petit Chat based on an imagined editing as an IP with no supporting evidence, is very concerning. Le Petit Chat's talk page was full of threats from you, including this warning for restoring a valid cite that you had removed. You must not issue threats to other users without good reason, particularly when they are restoring inappropriate edits that you have made. On Battle of Bouzegza you twice restored an error in the article [3], [4], and both times gave an inappropriate warning to the editor you fixed your mistake: [5], [6]. You cannot continue to a) make errors when editing articles, and b) issue warnings to people who fix your mistakes. If you continue to do this I will block you for WP:Incompetence. SilkTork (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sino-Vietnamese War removal reason was already given. It's speculation without any sources given. Unless wikipedia is suddenly a source of rumours, a section like that should not kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.27.85 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2018 (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).

O1lI0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

IP continues to retaliate with editing after I suspect someone has used a sock puppet and was blocked by SilkTork for reasons of harassment.Regardless of whether I misunderstood or not, but from the source analysis of IP, I became the target of revenge for sock puppets.IP was 2600:387:6::0/48((California)) and 123.161.171.108/16(China). Can refer to the editing of CaradhrasAiguo, the keyword is IP sock.Because those IP sock he said are obviously related to 123.161.171.108/16(China) or 67.188.179.66(California).‎‎

Decline reason:

I don't see where this addresses your own conduct or the reasons for the block. See WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2018 (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.

Just create an unblock request and add your explanation there. This way someone will review it and take your explanation into consideration :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah:Recently it seems that IPs is tampering with my personal page or attacking my edit.If you notice abnormalities, can you help?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AO1lI0%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=841630517&oldid=840951050
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Staple,_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=841630670
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Tibet_%281950%E2%80%93present%29&type=revision&diff=841172516&oldid=840984824
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_Years_in_Tibet&type=revision&diff=841172496&oldid=840984629

@Oshwah: @SilkTork:Are you sure you want to remain silent about these issues?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billboard_Hot_R%26B_Hits:_1980&curid=19999349&diff=842020950&oldid=840914070

In addition, I do not want to explain more. Things are happening, we just need to observe.In fact, I can only observe now.U.S. IP and China IP are probably related to each other. If so, these IPs are very likely to use PROXY or belong to the same organization.This is one of the reasons why I doubt the accounts or IPs that make the same or similar edits.--O1lI0 (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O1lI0 - Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to you. I've been inactive due to being busy in real life. I've protected your user page from further abuse from IPs, so this should no longer happen. I'll look into the IPs... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You added to my talk page a request to not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia pages, but I am not aware of ever having added an external link at all. Could I trouble you to direct me to the edit that prompted you to send me a note? Thanks! China is wonderful (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You add the same message on multiple pages, which looks like an advertising campaign. It is a Chinese Ministry of Education [[Double First Class University Plan|Double First Class Discipline University]], with Double First Class status in certain disciplines.<ref name="Chinese Department of Education">{{Cite web |url=http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_843/201709/t20170921_314942.html |title=教育部 财政部 国家发展改革委 关于公布世界一流大学和一流学科建设高校及建设 学科名单的通知 (Notice from the Ministry of Education and other national governmental departments announcing the list of double first class universities and disciplines)}}</ref> --O1lI0 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being vigilant against spam. I disagree with your assessment. My opinion is that these are appropriate and important edits, and that they do not even border upon being an advertising campaign. As the Double First Class University Plan page cited in the above text points out, and as is supported by what I believe to be an appropriate link to a primary source at the Chinese Ministry of Education website, The Chinese Ministry of Education just rolled out a new mechanism for identifying and supporting top universities. I believe that this new information belongs on the page of every university selected for recognition.China is wonderful (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like an explanation O1lI0. You have mass reverted what appear to be valid and helpful good faith edits without first seeking clarification from China is wonderful, and left an inappropriate template warning on that's user's talkpage. Given your prior similar inappropriate and aggressive behaviour for which you have been warned and blocked, this appears to be another indication that you are not suited to be editing on Wikipedia, or at least to be editing China related articles. I am inclined to block you again, as it appears you have simply returned to Wikipedia to pick up where you left off. However, I would like to hear your side of the story. SilkTork (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the meaning of these messages: Please do not edit, otherwise you will be blocked. Before that we would like to know what you think.In the past, I was blocked without comment.This time it just changed to block if I didn't talk, didn't I?So why do I need to talk about it? The results are all the same and will be blocked by SilkTork who had not listened to me at all. I refused SilkTork, no matter what he said.--O1lI0 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed the warning I gave - see User_talk:O1lI0#ANI above. However, you had been previously blocked four times by three different admins for similar behaviour, and I doubt if you missed those, so you should by now have got the general idea that your behaviour is unacceptable. You show no signs of changing your behaviour nor of acknowledging that you are aware that your behaviour is not appropriate. Users are allowed to edit any and all of the different language Wikipedias, but if they display unacceptable behaviour, and despite warnings and blocks, are not changing their behaviour, and if their language skill in that Wikipedia is making communication difficult, then they will be blocked from editing that particular Wikipedia, though they are still able to edit any of the other Wikipedias, including their local Wikipedia. This does not mean you are a bad person - just that you are not suited for editing that particular Wikipedia. As I am now considering an indefinite block (that doesn't mean infinite or forever - it just means the block will remain in place until you can convince me or any other admin that you understand what the problem is, and that you will not cause the same problem in future), I am giving you the opportunity to explain yourself. You can decide to explain yourself or not as the case may be. I suggest that if you do wish to continue editing here that you:

a) acknowledge that you are sometimes a bit hasty in reverting the edits of other users

b) confirm that you will discuss your concerns with the appropriate editor(s) before reverting

c) seek advice from an experienced user before issuing warnings

d) do not engage in edit warring

e) do not insult other users (if angry, take a deep breath, go for a walk, or stop editing for the day - come back tomorrow), and

f) explain fully your thinking in removing those appropriate good faith sourced edits by China is wonderful.

I will allow you time to compose your reply, but if I do not get a satisfactory response within 48 hours, or if you again revert appropriate edits, warn good faith editors, or make a personal attack I will block you indefinitely. SilkTork (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of reverting back my original edits, on the presumption that it is now clear these were not spam. Please let me know if you would like to discuss, and I ask that you do so before reverting them back. Many thanks! China is wonderful (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not make any explanation after that, I will treat you as a pure advertising distributor, but obviously you explain it, and this is all. You already explained why you made the same amount of content edits. I don't have any further editorial or comments on this.--O1lI0 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case it matters, I completely understand how someone could, in good faith, mistake the phrase "Double First Class University" as a crazed advertisement that needed deletion! It is a sub-optimal choice of official English translation.China is wonderful (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you miss my comment above (as it's in the middle of a thread), I am repeating the main points here:

As I am now considering an indefinite block I am giving you the opportunity to explain yourself. You can decide to explain yourself or not as the case may be. I suggest that if you do wish to continue editing here that you:

a) acknowledge that you are sometimes a bit hasty in reverting the edits of other users

b) confirm that you will discuss your concerns with the appropriate editor(s) before reverting

c) seek advice from an experienced user before issuing warnings

d) do not engage in edit warring

e) do not insult other users (if angry, take a deep breath, go for a walk, or stop editing for the day - come back tomorrow), and

f) explain fully your thinking in removing those appropriate good faith sourced edits by China is wonderful.

I will allow you time to compose your reply, but if I do not get a satisfactory response within 48 hours, or if you again revert appropriate edits, warn good faith editors, or make a personal attack I will block you indefinitely.

An indefinite block doesn't mean infinite or forever - it just means the block will remain in place until you can convince me or any other admin that you understand what the problem is, and that you will not cause the same problem in future. It is not a punishment - it simply put in place to prevent further harm or disruption to this Wikipedia by editors who may not understand what they are doing, and despite warnings show no signs they will stop the harm they are causing.

I hope that is clear. If not, please ask for a further explanation. SilkTork (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O1lI0, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ving Jol-ik (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]