User talk:Justtheeditor1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justtheeditor1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 10 July 2020 (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 Turnagra was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Mike Boateng 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Turnagra (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justtheeditor1! 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! Turnagra (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justtheeditor1. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Justtheeditor1. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Justtheeditor1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern and the time you have taken to express it. However, I want to clarify that I have no undisclosed financial stake in the topics I edit on Wikipedia. Your assertion is based on a misunderstanding and I assure you, it is a far-fetched and incorrect assumption.

I am not compensated, either directly or indirectly, for my contributions to Wikipedia. My edits are made in good faith, with the aim of enhancing the content on Wikipedia for the benefit of all users, and are based on my knowledge and interests. I strive to uphold the principles of neutrality and verifiability in all my edits.

Furthermore, I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and the prohibition of undisclosed paid advocacy. I firmly adhere to these principles, and I am committed to maintaining the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia.

I understand the seriousness of the issue you have raised and I respect the need to maintain transparency and avoid conflicts of interest. To reiterate, I have no financial affiliations or compensations related to the edits I make. I hope this clarifies any misconceptions and puts your concerns to rest.

I look forward to continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia community in a positive and beneficial manner. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2023 (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 CNMall41 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

A single reference was added from Furtherafrica.com. According to that site, "Although the information contained in this site may have been obtained from sources which are believed to be reliable, it may not have been independently verified, and no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, of its veracity is hereby given, and therefore no responsibility is or will be accepted to or in relation to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of such information." This indicates no editorial oversight and therefore not reliable as a source, especially for establishing notability.

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:Remoteli 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed feedback regarding the references for the draft Wikipedia article.

Your thorough explanation of the required criteria for sources is greatly appreciated, and I will certainly take these points into account as I strive to enhance the completeness of our article. The comment regarding the single reference from Furtherafrica.com is particularly helpful. I understand the importance of reliable and independent verification and will take additional care in selecting our references moving forward.

I look forward to revising and resubmitting the draft article after addressing these issues and ensuring our references fully meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

If I encounter any difficulties during this process or need further guidance, I’ll be sure to reach out via the Articles for creation help desk, your talk page, or Wikipedia's real-time chat help.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable feedback. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Remoteli. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT remove comments from AfC submissions. Your actions are showing more and more that you potentially have a COI as it relates to this draft. As previously requested from others, I would ask you again read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next removal of draft comment will be reported. You are free to opine on the draft of course, but removal of others comments is considered disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reminder about the principles of respectful dialogue on Wikipedia. However, I would like to query your stance on maintaining a comment that is now known to be incorrect.

The purpose of our discussions here is to collaboratively create and improve content that is accurate, fair, and unbiased. Leaving an incorrect comment unaddressed may mislead other editors or readers, which is contrary to the essence of Wikipedia's mission. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CNMall41,

I find your assertions to be troubling and, in my perspective, misleading. I'd like to clarify that I'm maintaining the utmost integrity in this discussion, as I believe the accuracy and fairness of Wikipedia's content are of paramount importance.

Your comment, which appears to be deliberately incorrect, could potentially influence other editors inaccurately. I would kindly urge you to consider revising your statement, knowing it has the potential to misguide the assessment of this draft.

Additionally, it's disconcerting that bias may be influencing these discussions. Wikipedia, as a global and neutral platform, should uphold its principles of fairness, impartiality, and equal representation for all subjects, regardless of origin or background.

For the last time, I assure you I have no conflict of interest as outlined in WP:COI or WP:PAID. Your repeated requests for disclosure seem to be founded on inaccurate assumptions, rather than objective evidence. I request that we refocus our efforts on ensuring the accuracy and fairness of the content, rather than making groundless allegations. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Boateng, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Turnagra (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Draft:Remoteli. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Final warning. These comments are needed for other reviewers. If you disagree, you can certainly comment on the draft page for other reviewers to see as well (as told to you previously). CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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} 20:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Your repeated removal of a reviewer's comments at Draft:Remoteli is both incorrect and disruptive to the draft review process.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to the account Russellanderson (talk · contribs)?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ponyobons,

I appreciate your message and understand the decision to enforce a block based on the perceived edit warring. I do, however, feel compelled to express my perspective on this situation.

During this process, I have endeavored to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the content on Wikipedia. I have sought to correct an error that could mislead readers and other editors, and have continually provided clear evidence to support my case.

However, it seems that CNMall41 has chosen not to amend an incorrect comment, despite my efforts to demonstrate its inaccuracy. This unwillingness to ensure accuracy suggests a lack of commitment to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, a platform that values factual information above all else.

I regret to express my growing concern about what appears to be unconscious biases among some individuals on this platform. When these biases are challenged, the reactions often include blocking, enlisting the support of other Wikipedia members, or taking action from alternative accounts.

While I don't object to the block you've instituted, as it proves a crucial point about the current environment on Wikipedia, I hope that this situation can spark a broader conversation about the importance of objectivity, accuracy, and transparency within the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to contributing constructively to Wikipedia once the block expires. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite disappointing, yet not entirely unexpected, that you've disregarded all the information provided, thereby validating my perspective. I have no connection to the account you've highlighted. However, it's fairly clear that there's a link between this account and CNMall41. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just two unrelated editors chasing the same paid editing contracts? That makes just as much sense I suppose.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that we both share a commitment to ensuring that celebrities from ethnic minority backgrounds, along with their pursuits, receive equal and impartial consideration on Wikipedia

I believe it's time for me to end my interaction with you, CNMall41. It appears that you derive satisfaction from engaging in disagreements on Wikipedia, rather than other more productive endeavors. I remain hopeful that a person of greater integrity will step up in continuing the important work of ensuring step up to aid in the crucial work of preserving and enhancing the representation of celebrities from various ethnic backgrounds I wish you success in all your future endeavors. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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} 21:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinated editing, whether through paid editing or individuals with an undisclosed conflict of interest is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 26 July 2023 (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).

Justtheeditor1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My recent block on Wikipedia arose from my attempt to rectify a false statement on the Draft:Remoteli page. User CNMall41 stated that a Forbes Africa article was penned by a freelance writer, which is incorrect. A simple Google search reveals that the piece was actually written by the Head of Digital for Forbes Africa, thereby making it highly reputable. I requested CNMall41 to amend their comment to avoid propagating misleading information, which contradicts Wikipedia's principles of credibility and accuracy. Instead of addressing my detailed message in the talk page, CNMall41 continued to engage in an edit war.

In a surprising turn of events, it seemed as if the user might have accessed a different account to communicate with me and subsequently imposed an initial 48-hour block, which was then upgraded to an indefinite block. The user accused me of being a paid editor and made connections to another account without providing any proof.

I respectfully request the unblocking of my account and a thorough investigation into the conduct of users CNMall41 and Ponyo. The sudden involvement of Ponyo, their discourteous behavior, and lack of rational dialogue raised some concerns. I believe this block represents a misuse of administrative power and warrants careful scrutiny.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. Instead of deflecting by talking about others, talk about yourself and your actions only. It is quite obvious that you have a connection to the subject of your edits. Until you are honest about this, and the use of other accounts/working with operators of other account, there is no pathway forward. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2023 (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.

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).

Justtheeditor1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am writing with regards to the recent block placed on my account, attributed to an alleged association with the subjects of my edits. I am deeply concerned about this situation as it has prevented me from participating in the collaborative endeavor that is the Wikipedia community.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that my previous statements regarding my relationship with the subjects of my edits remain true. I do not have any personal or professional connection with them, and my contributions have been solely driven by a sincere interest in ensuring their accurate representation, particularly since they hail from ethnic backgrounds.

To provide context, I am a member of a mothers' group that endeavors to create Wikipedia pages for celebrities of diverse ethnicities and their associated ventures. We've identified a worrying pattern of disparity regarding the acceptance of our pages. Historically, pages we've created for white celebrities have been accepted without incident, while those for celebrities of ethnic backgrounds have faced significantly more resistance, despite equivalent, or even superior, coverage by reputable publications.

We are not receiving any form of remuneration for crafting Wikipedia pages; it is purely a pastime that we engage in out of personal interest as mums. Each one of us maintains an individual account which we use for our contributions.

It is important to note that I typically act as the writer within our group, compiling information for pages that other group members subsequently create. However, I occasionally participate in the page creation process myself, driven by a desire to ensure fair representation of these outstanding individuals.

I must point out that the spirit of Wikipedia is embodied in collaborative efforts to disseminate information accurately and equitably. Unfortunately, I believe my account has been blocked due to unfounded assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

The issue further escalated when I called out an instance of bias by a user against a publication based in Africa, despite my proof that the cited article was authored by a credible source - the Digital Head of Forbes Africa. Regrettably, this claim has been dismissed, and the said user proceeded to edit this reference on the page I was working on, as well as another one.

In light of these events, I cannot help but question the fairness of my account's block while the actions of the other user, which appear to contradict Wikipedia's policies, are seemingly overlooked. We are all human, prone to errors, but the path towards resolution should not be laden with pride, but rather, acknowledgment and correction.

I would like to express my concern regarding an apparent unconscious bias among some users of this platform towards pages representing entities from non-western regions. It is my sincere hope that this message will be considered thoughtfully, and my account will be unblocked, enabling me to continue contributing to the diverse tapestry of knowledge that is Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Decline reason:

Given your behavior at Draft:Remoteli, your argumentative replies here that continue to discuss other editors, and conflicting statements about whether you're collaborating off site with other editors, I think it best that you stay blocked. A potential way for you to be unblocked is to a) stop talking about other people; b) stop making wild accusations that are just parroting the accusations made against you; c) list all the accounts you are collaborating with off site; d) indicate how you'll comply with our policy on off site collaboration in the future; and e) tell us how you'll interact with people who decline your drafts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2023 (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 NinjaRobotPirate,

Thank you for outlining the concerns and the potential steps for unblocking. I'd like to take a moment to clarify a few points.

Regarding collaboration off-site, my group and I adhere to Wikipedia's policies on off-site collaboration. We understand the importance of transparency and are committed to complying with all community guidelines.

a) I understand that focusing on the issues rather than individuals is paramount, and I will continue to do so. b) It's not my intention to make wild accusations. I'm trying to present my point of view, and I welcome any constructive feedback. c) I can assure you that our collaboration is in line with Wikipedia's policies. d) As already stated, we are complying with the policy on off-site collaboration. e) I will continue to be respectful and open to dialogue with those who decline my drafts, as constructive collaboration is at the heart of Wikipedia.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and I look forward to resolving this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtheeditor1 (talk • contribs)

Someone else will review your request, but up above you denied being connected to other accounts, but in this request you seem to admit it. So were you lying then or are you lying now? 331dot (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 331dot,

As previously indicated, I have no affiliation with the user whose association was initially used as the basis for blocking my account. Initially, the block seemed to be predicated on the assumption that I was a paid contributor, and then, an alleged connection with the subjects of my edits was cited. However, there appears to be a lack of clear rationale or evidence supporting these charges. It seems more plausible that the original user reacted unfavorably to my calling out their bias and request for them to comment accurately on a page after providing them with factual evidence.

When I mentioned being part of a group of editors, I am referring to a collaborative effort to contribute to Wikipedia, not the operation of multiple accounts or any form of inappropriate behavior. Each of us within this group operates independently, using our own individual accounts, and we do not coordinate in a way that breaches Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry. The essence of my message remains that my contributions are done in good faith, with the aim of increasing the representation of diverse ethnicities within the platform.

Lastly, I must express my concern regarding the tone of your messages. There seems to be an inclination to quickly dismiss my explanations and assumptions about dishonesty. The overall pattern suggests an unfortunate dismissiveness, which does give me cause to worry about potential unconscious bias at play and your connection with CNMall41 and Ponyo.

I would like to emphasize that everyone should strive for fair treatment, objectivity, and understanding, which are principles at the heart of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtheeditor1 (talk • contribs)

Using the unblock template summons admins to look at your unblock request. That is likely where these new folks are coming from. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Novem Linguae,

Thank you for your insight into the unblock process and clarifying the presence of new administrators reviewing my request. I appreciate your input, as it helps me understand the process better. If there's anything else you believe would be helpful for me to know or do during this process, please don't hesitate to share. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe exactly how you coordinate and how you select the subjects of your edits. You don't pick them at random. You are doing this in good faith, but your answers here have been evasive and you were dishonest or at least not completely honest with your initial statements in this area, you initially said "The user accused me of being a paid editor and made connections to another account without providing any proof" without saying that you are indeed connected to other accounts(even if done within policy as you claim). You even accuse others of using multiple accounts to act against you without hard evidence. I share your goal of increasing coverage of underrepresented areas of the encyclopedia, but you aren't helping yourself or that goal here. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and for expressing your concerns. I want to clarify my position and address the misunderstandings.

Firstly, regarding the coordination of my edits, I assure you that I select subjects based on relevance, interest, and areas that need improvement. I'm committed to Wikipedia's mission and do not make selections at random.

As for the connections to other accounts, I must state that my initial comments may not have fully captured the nuances of the situation. While I do collaborate with others, I assure you that it is within Wikipedia's policy, and my intent was never to be dishonest. I am not associated with the particular account in question, which is the reason cited for my account being blocked.

Lastly, the accusations against others were not intended to deflect or deceive but were based on concerns I had at that time. I recognize that I may not have handled the situation optimally and appreciate your constructive criticism.

I share your dedication to enhancing Wikipedia's content and want to assure you that I am acting in good faith. Thank you for engaging in this dialogue, and I hope we can move forward constructively. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2023 (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).

Justtheeditor1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am writing to request the review of my account's indefinite block and to provide clarity regarding the allegations that led to this action. Firstly, I want to affirm that I have no associations with any of the accounts that have been mentioned in relation to my block. The suspicions raised are based on assumptions, and I assure you, I have never been paid to create pages nor do I have any connection to the subjects of my drafts. As I have expressed on multiple occasions, my activity on Wikipedia is fueled by my enthusiasm as a fan of celebrities, especially those from diverse and ethnic backgrounds. My intent is to contribute to the representation and recognition of these individuals on the platform. I accepted the initial 48-hour ban as a reasonable response to the original situation. However, the subsequent upgrade to an indefinite ban, without substantive evidence to support the serious allegations made against me, feels disproportionate. I kindly request a reassessment of this decision, taking into consideration my explanation and intentions. A warning, with the understanding that any further inappropriate actions on my part could lead to an indefinite ban, would seem to be a fair and just resolution.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2023 (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.

To clarify, you are blocked, not banned, the two words are not synonyms here. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justtheeditor1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Remoteli, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justtheeditor1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Remoteli".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]