User talk:EHowe

January 2018

Hello, I'm Drchriswilliams. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kirkwall, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of largest libraries, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kirkwall, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Pickaquoy Centre, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EHowe. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 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).

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

Request reason:

accidental creating of multiple accounts EHowe (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

How on Earth was that accidental? Yamla (talk) 21:17, 8 October 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.

Unblock reason

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).

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

Request reason:

Using different accounts on different computers

Decline reason:

Seeing the evidence below as stated by Yamla, it's clear you were not telling the truth. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (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.

You set up your most recent account well after the previous unblock request. You clearly knew about WP:SOCK at that point. --Yamla (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see you lied about it, too, over at User talk:EwanHowe27: "mistakenly accused of sock puppetry". Given that, I see no possible basis for an unblock. You may want to explain why on earth you think you should be unblocked, given this evidence from earlier today. --Yamla (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reason

{unblock|reason= I created my first account on one computer, then on a second computer I created another account as I couldn’t remember my login details for my first one. I was hoping to delete one of my accounts and be unblocked on the other one, and use it as my only one}} EHowe (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You realise your logs are public, right? And convincingly disprove your claims? This account was blocked on 2018-10-03, as can be seen here. You were informed about WP:SOCK here. You were clearly aware of that by this edit. EwanHowe27 was created on 2018-11-21, as can be seen here. Note that's well after this account was blocked. Here, you falsely claimed "mistakenly accused of sockpuppetry". It's time to either start being honest or admit you lack sufficient competence to edit here. Which path do you wish to take? --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

{unblock|reason= I will admit truthfully to what I did, and apologise for it. I only wish now that I could have a single account to use from now on.}}EHowe (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You now have two open unblock requests. That's inappropriate. You only need one, please remove the other. Note also that you say you will admit what you did, but you have not yet done so. --Yamla (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I committed sock puppetry with two different accounts, and untruthfully claimed it was accidental, and now apologise for it.

Decline reason:

At this point, after the sequence of deliberate falsehoods leading up to this appeal, the Standard Offer is pretty much your only route back to editing. I have disabled your other unblock requests. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:56, 14 February 2019 (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.

You now have three open unblock requests. As we require competence here, I have revoked your talk page access. Note that the above statement is also deliberately misleading; this user has used five separate accounts, including this one, not the two they claim above. Anyway, the reviewing admin should close all three unblock requests. The reviewing admin is free to reinstate talk page access if they believe it is warranted. Otherwise, this leaves only WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user, after losing access to this talk page, placed a fourth unblock request over on User talk:EwanHowe27. This blatant forum shopping shows pretty clearly this user has no intention of following our policies. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]