Textbaron
National varieties of English
edit
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Rafflesia Forest Reserve, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Blue Edits (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Textbaron (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Amadou Thiam has been accepted
edit
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.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)- THANKS! Happy to share with the world. Textbaron (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHello, Textbaron. Thank you for your work on Amadou Thiam. User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
please add the appropriate infobox
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Speedy deletion nomination of Paul H. Cohen
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Paul H. Cohen 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 real person or group of people 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. SurferSquall (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
edit Hello, Textbaron. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Paul H. Cohen, 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, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- 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. 2A00:23EE:2150:2D23:CC07:12FF:FEF2:EAD9 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Cohen (Lawyer) (August 9)
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paul Cohen (Lawyer) 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.
 |
Hello, Textbaron!
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! Paul W (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC) |
- Hi Paul,
- Thanks for your reply. I am trying to improve every day and be a better contributor, and your comments certainly help that cause. I really researched citations for this draft and kept consulting Wikipedia articles about submissions to improve the entry. One thing I did learn from your comment was that the citations come after the punctuation, which I had missed.
- Secondly, I understand that Linkedin is not a source, but I am sure I haven't used it as a source in the draft.
- Also, the Sulu case got widespread media coverage around the world, which is why events around it take up a lot of space.
- Can you be kind to guide me a little more?
- I understand that the draft is quite near the criteria for acceptance but just misses out, what can I do more and in what section?
- Thanks a lot again, Paul. Textbaron (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi User:Textbaron. Wikipedia is particularly exacting when it comes to referencing in biographies of living people - WP:BLP talks about the need to use high-quality sources: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Sources should also be "intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
- In this context, reference 7 may not be reliable as it comes from one of Cohen's LinkedIn posts (but see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources). You might need to find an alternative source, or remove the related material.
- You may have noticed that I also removed some embedded external links (see WP:EL). Wikipedia's Manual of Style urges editors only to include external links in a dedicated section (usually at the end of articles), in permitted circumstances in infoboxes, and as part of inline citations.
- As a rough rule of thumb, every paragraph should include a reference (sources can be reused if they support multiple assertions). There are, for example, no sources given for his education or early career. Some dates here would also help. And do you have a date of birth for him?
- It might be worth devoting a section or subsection to the Sulu case, rather than spreading it over two sections. Be careful about the tone - a neutral Point of View is required (see WP:nPOV) "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
- Once the body content is improved, the lead section might then be expanded so that it provides a brief summary of the article highlights. And an infobox might also be helpful to readers. (A year or so ago, I helped with edits to an article about another barrister, Paul Darling.)
- I hope this helps. Paul W (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the detailed response, Paul.
- I'll take note of the things you mentioned and do some more research, as advised.
- This has been really helpful!
- Thanks again, Paul. Textbaron (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Paul,
- I worked on the pointers you raised in your reply and have added more research into the draft. I haven't requested a review yet.
- Is it possible that you reviewed the draft and the additional citations and comment if the draft is good enough?
- That would be such a help.
- Thanks again. Textbaron (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Cohen (lawyer) has been accepted
editCongratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Paul W (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)- Thanks Paul! You have been such a great help in the process.
- Really appreciate how you too out the time to offer a detailed guide.
- Much obliged. Textbaron (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Paul Cohen
edit
Hello, Textbaron. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Paul Cohen".
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. ✗plicit 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHi Textbaron. Thank you for your work on Gonzalo Stampa. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- thank you Textbaron (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit
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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Nomination of Nathalie Beasnael for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Beasnael (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Unblock request
edit
Textbaron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Dear editors, may I request the bar on editing be removed. I have never abused Wikipedia policies or guidelines and have always tried to be a positive contributor that sticks to the guidelines and advice from senior editors. I have even been praised by senior Wikipedia editors for some of my efforts which shows I follow advice diligently. I would like to continue contributing to the community as a productive member. Sincerely,Textbaron (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:55, 20 December 2024 (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.
This doesn't address your confirmed sockpuppetry at all. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Textbaron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppetry. I mean, you aren't even subtle about it. Yamla (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2025 (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.
Dear editors, I again request you to unblock the account as I have no knowledge of the allegations. I do not know how this sockpuppetry works, but I haven't engaged in it for sure. Is there a way you people can help me remove this tag? Is there anything I can do besides submitting requests that are being rejected consistently?
Textbaron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Dear editors, there is no reason for me to be subtle when I have done nothing as claimed. I don't know why this block has appeared but I would certainly continue requesting an unblock or at least request knowing the period for which this block would remain. Thank you again.
Decline reason:
Please place your initial statement within your request as intended(as I've done here). The block will remain until you convince a checkuser to remove it. For that you need to speak to your inappropriate use of additional accounts. Two checkusers have said it is quite obvious you are socking. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2025 (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.
- Dear 331dot, I did not understand your comment. Besides, can it not be a coincidence that this account is involved in this situation. You can scroll up to this talk page and see how I have been respectful over the years to all advice and comments. So its really frustrating not being able to convince editors who are generally quite helpful and encouraging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Textbaron (talk • contribs)
- Your unblock request was malformed, and addresses me personally, so I removed the formatting. You may make another new request for someone else to review. If this is a big coincidence, you will need to explain why technical evidence would make it appear otherwise. Again, two checkusers have said the private evidence is clear. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Textbaron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Maybe my coworking space and shared IPs are the reason. I am in Pakistan with lots of restriction on internet and free speech already and sometimes we do need to use VPNs to access even harmless sites like Wikipedia and X (twitter). But all this is really disheartening for users already facing undue restrictions.
Decline reason:
My use of the checkuser tool confirms the abuse of multiple accounts. Your explanations and denial do not outweigh the technical evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2025 (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.
Textbaron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Also, if it makes the appeal stronger, I will make sure I am more careful with the safety of my account and try avoiding using public networks in the future to limit a repeat of such an incident.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. One open unblock request at a time, please. Yamla (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2025 (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.
{{unblock|Dear editors, I really do not know what to say or do to assure you of my innocence; I have already stated that I will be more careful with my usage and will be vigilant in the future. Im not sure if an apology is something you are looking for?)}}
Unfortunately, apologies aren't necessarily all that helpful in a situation such as this. At present, technical evidence (such as your IP address) connects this count to at least two other accounts directly, as well as several more accounts less directly, all of which are discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress. Because of the technical evidence and ongoing abuse related to this case, there is not much we can accept. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) At this point, the standard offer may help. To use it, you should take the following steps:
- Stop editing the English Wikipedia, logged out or with any account, for six months.
- During that time, contribute to another Wikimedia project while following their policies and guidelines.
- After the six months, come back here and appeal.
This shows admins that you are able and willing to follow policies and guidelines and also that you have enough restraint to not sock. QwertyForest (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll wait six months. Textbaron (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Textbaron (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Textbaron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Dear Wikipedia editors, it has been more than a year since I last requested an unblock of my account. I work at a university and use internet provided by it, It is a public network with hundreds of other users accessing it each day. My account is linked to a verified email and I have been a user since 2022, contributed positively and helped add new pages to the site.
I did try to investigate the other accounts and there was one other user I could trace who works on Wikipedia for another department, however I do not know the account details.
I have always followed guidelines and heeded to advice. And i have never been disrespectful. You said wait six months, i waited more than a year. Kindly provide an update if i can expect my account to be unblocked. Thank you)
Decline reason:
Continued socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 8 June 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.
- Checkuser needed voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- Confirmed evasion as Earl221, which I'll go and block now. Also, Azam4545 but that was blocked more than a year ago. --Yamla (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- {{unblock @Yamla respected editor,
- I have spent a good amount of time last night on Wikipedia to understand the blocking policies/sock puppetry/check user and I would like to humbly submit that I have been wrong. I understand that Wikipedia has been alarmed by activities on various accounts that I have held, but in my defense, I would like to draw your attention to the actual edits made through these accounts, which were unharmful, based on facts and properly referenced, always.
- You can see my history with Wikipedia on all accounts, I created multiple new pages that have added to the Wiki's rich repository and have sought guidance from experienced editors where necessary respectfully, and have even been praised for my work.
- If i was I a vandal, would have I not maligned any pages? Why would I listen to editors and their guides repeatedly while attempting to create new pages? Or why would have any of the edits before the block be allowed? This clearly shows I was approaching Wikipedia with proper responsibility and caution required to protect truthful information.
- I might have maintained separate accounts but they were in no way malafide and the quality of edits was never compromised -- I always used proper citations, references, linking; understood the need for objectivity, neutrality and encyclopedic tone, and never once used the platform for promotion, marketing or score settling. This has never been my agenda. All the accounts that I had were used to add objective. truthful information verified by independent sources.
- I do believe and understand that the advent of AI has made management of Wikipedia all the more important as the last bastion of truthful information and I completely understand the no-holds-barred attitude of blocking suspected accounts. But trust me, the intent with any of my accounts has never been ill, rather it has always been a personal validation/achievement of having created something useful on a global platform like Wikipedia, and i really hope I am allowed to continue to do so.
- There is always a room for improvement, but improvement comes if one is provided a chance to make amends. I take this as one of many learning experiences that shape a person's outlook and again, accept my fault.
- I humbly submit that the edits i have done over the year have all been genuine, fact-based, non-hateful and within Wikipedia's norms. Yes, the number of accounts was a problem that I accept as my mistake. Apart from this one, I have three or four other accounts that I used but none have been used to cause vandalism or malign any page.
- I seek advice on how to move ahead. If you think deleting all those accounts and maintaining one single user account should be the case, I am willing to oblige.
- Once again, I request you to set aside the number of accounts for an instance, and verify the actual edits/changes I have made over the years to ascertain if those have been in violation of the Wikipedia policies in any way. Also, my conduct has never been disrespectful which should showcase my willingness to understand and improve without anger or desperation obscuring my judgement.
- I surrender my case to you with a genuine hope that this request will be considered with compassion and leniency and that I will be allowed to remain a constructive part of the community.
- Thank you.
- }} Textbaron (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here's the fundamental problem: you say that you learned about the problems of sockpuppetry last night, but there are multiple administrators discussing socking with you over the last year and a half.
- While it's good that you have been trying to make good edits, the intent isn't the only relevant thing. The fact is that you had agency and you have severely damaged any trust the community can have in you by repeatedly evading your block and apparently lying about these actions. One can't just "set aside the number of accounts," because each one of those accounts represents a violation of trust and a conscious, intentional, act of deceit. Requesting an unblock for sockpuppetry that denies sockpuppetry while you're actively engaged in sockpuppetry is an act of extremely bad faith.
- You say that your conduct has never been disrespectful, but, in fact, your actions have been extremely disrespectful. You don't get plaudits for not acting with anger; you in fact have no basis for anger, since your current status on Wikipedia was entirely the result of things you did that were completely in your control.
- As for the path forward, you were advised what that would be in March of last year: following the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Actions speak a lot louder than promises do, and following the WP:STANDARDOFFER would be a demonstration of good faith and the ability to improve your conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)