Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Yeoman, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized edits posted on 8 October 2015 have been reversed to meet quality standards -Sergiozygmunt (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Will2022. You have new messages at MelbourneStar's talk page.
Message added 15:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is test! Carry on... Will2022 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will2022 (talk 14:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I saw what you did for Carmel, New York. Thanks and keep up the great work! Smokey2022 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at your user page and i would like to say is should look nice.... but i own an account without the use of picture browsing and now it looks like its missing the structure... could you make a link for users who would like to see your user page without a picture navigation ??? tnx in advane  Retrorick wikipedia  talk  10:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Will2022, I was wondering why you reverted two of my edits on the Olney Theatre Center For The Arts page? I was trying to update the page with current information and remove information that is no longer accurate. I am confused as to why they were reverted? Could you please explain? Bpolin (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will2022,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged FRC Team 5943 for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 19:29, 18 December 2016 (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).

Will2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I retired from the use of my former account Smokey2022, and thusly I'm not a sock puppet account. Additionally, I haven't violated any Wikipedia Policies...

Decline reason:

You created multiple accounts and presented yourself as if you were separate editors in complete violation of WP:SOCK. Your only option is the Standard Offer.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:57, 16 June 2017 (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.

Will2022, I received your email message. I came here to reply, but I see that you tried to request unblocking here, so have repaired the request template for you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Will2022, I received your e-mail in which you claim that I "unjustly blocked you". I didn't block you. You were blocked by DoRD. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I received your email message requesting the standard offer. According to the date of your block, the earliest that you will be eligible is November 23, at which point you may request unblocking here by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:14, 7 November 2017 (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).

Will2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Standard Offer

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2017 (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.