Welcome back, an idea
Hello again Willietell. Since we have again recently discussed conflict of interest, I would like to explain a little more and show evidence of what constitutes conflict of interest (WP:COI). I would not start posting templates on talk pages of regulars except for edit warring or vandalism, but on Wikipedia we commonly use these related templates: Template:COI (useful for organization or company articles with mainly edits from involved editor(s)), Template:COI edit notice (for talk page headers), Template:autobiography (quite similar to an organization writing on itself, but this is for individuals writing about themselves); we also have Template:Uw-coi to warn users. The message is clear: involved editors are likely to not be able to objectively write about the companies or organizations they are very involved in, this is not an insult or attack but normal human behavior.
Although it is in no way forbidden, we commonly call single purpose accounts (WP:SPA) the accounts of editors which are only (or almost only) editing on a particular topic. The edit history of editors thus says a lot about the level of conflict of interest. SPA is not a baseless accusation of COI, it is evidence of COI.
I may be stating the obvious, but the goal of the Wikipedia project is to build an encyclopedia. It is a huge project covering a high number of topics. Other than editing articles, there also are many ways editors contribute, like improving citations, copy-editing articles to follow the manual of style (WP:MOS), participating to vandalism patrolling, working on images, participating by voting at articles for deletion (WP:AfD), helping other editors at articles for creation (WP:AfC), etc. There are many Wikiprojects (see Wikipedia:WikiProject) and many venues (please check Wikipedia:Backlog for an example of a number of possible tasks anyone with enough competence can help with, or even my user page for a collection of links).
The goal of this message is to encourage you to participate in other Wikipedia areas. It is an invitation, which you are by no means obligated to accept. However, this would show good will to participate building the encyclopedia. One of the worse outcomes on Wikipedia is to end up considered as not being here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). When not resulting in blocks, it is still not a constructive path towards collaboration and the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF) which are very important on Wikipedia.
What I am trying to say is that I am persuaded that your experience on Wikipedia could be more enjoyable and even gratifying; that in non-conflict subject areas you would be likely to positively collaborate with other editors to build something great. Please think about other areas of interest you may be interested in working on. But it's up to you, this is only advice.
- Your claim that I run an "anti-Jehovah's Witness blog" is a misrepresentation, and your attempt to use an editor's off-Wiki opinions as a characterisation of Wikipedia edits is a breach of Wikipedia's harrassment policy: "Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment". You are to retract the claim.
- Your use of 'scare quotes' in reference to '"another" editor' implies an accusation of sockpuppetry. You are to immeidately either retract the false claim or provide your alleged 'evidence' in support of your claim so it can be assessed by admins.
- Your claim about geolocation is obviously a lie, since you have no way of geolocating my Wikipedia account. I have no affiliation with any Wikipedia editor outside of Wikipedia. You are to immediately retract the false claim that you know anything at all about my 'geolocation'.
Additionally, your use of "as the editor plainly pointed out" is not a remotely reliable basis for your assertion that there is nothing wrong with your editing history, since the new editor's lengthy comments at the article's Talk page are obviously neither objective nor constructive.
You should also be aware that even if you do not attempt to justify your recent insinuation of sockpuppetry, there is already evidence that you have been fully informed that your longstanding insinuations of such constitutes a personal attack, and that you are already explicitly aware that it is not appropriate to make such insinuations at article Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
As you seem to be inactive (which has happened in the past after inappropriate actions have been pointed out, though that may or may not be the case in this instance), I will leave this matter in abeyance until you resume editing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)