User talk:WillPeppers

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello WillPeppers. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:WillPeppers. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=WillPeppers|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Also, please list all of the accounts you have ever edited Wikipedia with. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yunshui I don't appreciate the liar liar remark and will be happy to show you my ID. I am not working for any firm and haven't done anything for pay. I just turned 18 and can prove anything you ask. This whole investigation and block is highly uncalled for. WillPeppers (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:48, 28 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello! I am appealing because I was listed as the sockpuppet of Johnsavn, who I have had absolutely no connection with ever. I know everyone says that when they get hit by a sockpuppet block, but I implore that you run Checkuser again or something because this is incredibly confusing to me. I am not that sockpuppet, and have not operated the DOZENS of accounts on his sockpuppet list. What was it that linked me to him? Was it a certain IP address? Thanks a lot. WillPeppers (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Whether or not this account is connected to Johnsaavn and the other accounts involved (either operated by the same person or someone else working for the same business) there are plenty of other reasons why unblocking you would not be to the benefit of the project. Those reasons include edit-warring, covertly editing for promotional purposes, dishonest attempts to hide the nature of your editing, and pretty certainly sockpuppetry, whether with "Johnsaavn" or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:42, 11 January 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.

Why unblocking

Why unblocking 117.230.134.100 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]