Amerpol2005

Welcome!

Hello, Maxopalski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be an article (or draft of an article) about yourself. Writing about yourself is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians.

As this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. We require individuals to meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person to accept articles about them. A page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to or change it, please propose the changes on its talk page.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent 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 for sports persons and athletes). 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 User:Maxopalski/sandbox 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.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Maxopalski! 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! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Max Opalski (December 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Grumpylawnchair were:

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Max Opalski 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.

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article about yourself, at Maximilian Opalski. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for promoting your client company on your user page in violation of the Wikipedia:User pages guideline after the same article was deleted as promotional from mainspace, failing to disclose your paid editing status on your user page as required by WP:PAID, failing to edit in accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and failing to heed the advice given to you in other discussions..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

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).

Amerpol2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, why your edits were promotional?

they were not and the reviewer is completely out of line

What is your relationship with the subjects you have been editing about?

I have none

If you are unblocked, what topic areas will you edit in?

Continue writing in what i feel like to better my writing skills

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

My article followed every wiki guidline and the user that blocked me should be reported.

Amerpol2005 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clearly not an honest unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Please make an honest unblock request.

• You wrote an article saying what the company wants the world to know about it. That is writing for publicity purposes, which is the same as promotion.
• Don't lie about having no relationship with the company. You wrote in this edit "I'm an independent contractor hired by the compony". The company is your client. You are writing about your client. That makes you a paid editor.
• You have not adequately addressed the concerns described in the block message.

I received your email. Wikipedia business is conducted on Wikipedia, not via email. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Dude, you are so lame, im just trying to write, i said i would fix the article and follow guidlines, and you just banned my account. make that make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerpol2005 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

To help us respond to the request, please do the following:

1. Review Wikipedia's payment disclosure and conflict of interest policies and guidelines, then explain in your own words how those apply to your block and what you would do differently if unblocked.
2. Describe the types of edits you would like to make if you were unblocked.

Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see how wikipedias guidlelines were causing the ban on my account because of the conflict of interest. i did not know wikipedias rules on that and i clearly broke the guidelines. If i were unblocked i would fix the article and disclose any affiliations i have for conflict of interest. Amerpol2005 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You didn't know the rules? You were told the rules in my reply to you on my talk page. And when I declined your request to restore your article, you went ahead and recreated it anyway on your own user page, which has been deleted. Use draft space or your sandbox for drafting articles. At that point I figured we have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (you weren't given links to read just to ignore them) so I blocked you, after which you dug yourself deeper by lying about your affiliation in your block appeal.

Basically, you have lost the trust of the community. You need to convince another administrator (not me) that you are here to build an encyclopedia. A good first step would be to agree to refrain from any further edits in mainspace about Opal Enterprises, any other clients, or any other topic with which you have a conflict of interest. You can still use WP:AFC to submit drafts for review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I though creating it in your draft was only a draft for you until you moved it to main space. i was trying to just fix it since you would not undelete it , i wasn't trying to republish it. i was trying to do the correct thing but you have made this extremely unpleasant for me. at this point like you got it bro I'm not gonna argue over the computer with a keyboard warrior. Amerpol2005 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Look, I'm giving you advice on getting you unblocked. You need to own up to the fact that you are a paid editor who created an article for publicity purposes in mainspace. Nobody moved it there, you created it there yourself from the outset. You can revise your appeal. Be specific about what you will and will not do once you are unblocked. I have given you advice on this already. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

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).

Amerpol2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, why your edits were promotional?

Here are the main areas from the earlier draft that could be seen as promotional "The company offers products from manufacturers including Andersen Corporation, Kolbe Windows & Doors, and James Hardie Industries" It reads like a sales or product catalog. another edit that was promotional was "The business was established with the goal of improving customer experiences within the remodeling industry". even though i was only going off the sources i had, this tells the compony intentions which is a promotional act.

What is your relationship with the subjects you have been editing about?

worked for them a little bit in the past as a contractor for some admin help.

If you are unblocked, what topic areas will you edit in?

Most likely continue writing in motorsports

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

Like mentioned, though i did have affiliation with the company, i was not paid to write this and this was written purely out from topic of interest.

Amerpol2005 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Unambiguous. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You should know that Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry isn't allowed here either. One user, one account. Apparently the username "ChiTown writer" is also yours, as a substantially similar Draft:Opal Enterprises has been created with substantially similar text (and identical recognition section). You need to get your original account unblocked. Evading the block only makes it harder to get unblocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is completely false and you guys have zero proof of that. this is completely out of line. similar text is no ground to stand on for this? i dont know that account and just want my own page unblocked! i already did everything you asked and agreed not to write about that topic any more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerpol2005 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Not just similar, but outright identical in one section. What's the chance of a totally unrelated person reproducing that after the article has been deleted? Also, there is technical evidence found by administrators with the 'checkuser' right. I am not one of them. Sorry.

I did try to advise you. Until now, your appeal above was decent. You can still revise your appeal to account for this situation, after reading WP:Guide to appealing blocks carefully. But now not just any administrator can unblock you, only a checkuser can. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

so what do i do Amerpol2005 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you think is your situation right now? Did you read the guide Anachronist mentioned above, and which situation from the WP:Guide to appealing blocks § Special situations matches yours? Jay 💬 12:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have one last question. If i do all of this, can i submit my drafts for review if i disclose that im a "paid editior" using the wiki tags. I know im not being paid for anything but at this point there is no way around it. my mistake last time was moving it to main page without submitting it for review (to be honest i did not know the differance at the time). i want to comply, but if im not mistakin, if i disclose everything i should still be able to write about it and at least submit it for review? Thank you. Amerpol2005 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, given that there's now technical evidence that sockpuppetry is involved, I think it's highly unlikely that you are unblocked, whether now or after following the WP:OFFER, without a restriction on making any edit related to this company or any other topic in which you have a WP:COI. If you would like to return to this project at some point, a better approach would be to think about what you would like to do and contribute on topics that you don't have a WP:COI with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Then why even tell what i should do to get unblocked, this administration is a joke. even if i wanted do something else how am i supposed to do that if im blocked indefinitely. Amerpol2005 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

i guess ill just go take a hike and come 6 months. This organization is terrible. Amerpol2005 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the promise of doing something else is far more likely to get you unblocked at some point than returning to edit the same WP:COI that has involved poor conduct. You spend a lot of time being hostile towards administrators, but the fact is that your story has been inconsistent and changing, and that has greatly lowered the ability for people to trust you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

That's true. I tried to help, but Amerpol2005 didn't even try to answer my questions. Jay 💬 04:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You can still appeal your block and I would support it, if you would only follow the advice you have been given. Disclosing everything in your appeal would be a good start. People who have evaded their blocks do get unblocked if they make honest commitments in the appeal.

Why is it so important to you to have this article on Opal Enterprises? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)