User talk:Spodermin69

Welcome!

Hello, Spodermin69, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jonas Aden, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bougenvilla (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zppix was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bougenvilla and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Spodermin69, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:56, 1 November 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).

Spodermin69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Rob, I can assure you I'm not a sock puppet or guilty of sock puppetry, the account that I've (for to me unknown reasons) been linked to is in no way associated with me. I am however the owner of another account but forgot my username etc. I do expect this account to be unblocked/unbanned for I am not guilty. If any proof is necessary please let me know what you need so I can provide.Spodermin69 (talk) 9:03 pm, 1 November 2016, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. No response in more than two weeks. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2016 (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.

{{checkuser needed}}: Can this account be compared to XPanettaa? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The technical evidence is Inconclusive. Spodermin69 and XPanettaa are using different types of devices. If I had run this check at SPI, I would have said that behavioral evidence should control the outcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Can you take another look? @Spodermin69: You re-created an article (Draft:Bougenvilla) that was previously created XPanettaa. Is it just coincidence? How did you create the article? Did someone tell you to do so? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vanjagenije: Please ping me once Spodermin69 responds to the above questions. It seems sensible to let them provide their explanation before pointing out the many similarities between the accounts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]