Hello, Fewlers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Jeremy Bloom did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Panian513 19:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi can you please refer to what sources were not verifiable?
Fewlers (
talk)
22:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I linked all of the changes that I made on a an article that hasn't been updated in 10 years. Can you give me insight? Fewlers ( talk) 13:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Fewlers. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 article subjects 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. "Highly successful" is not neutral. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 22:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a fan of Skiing I noticed that Jeremy Bloom's wikipedia isn't up to date. Can you please give me insight as to what is bias about the edits that I'm making? Fewlers ( talk) 13:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)- Please let me defend my case
Fewlers (
talk)
15:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a duck situation because the information I contributed is factual. I worked very hard to contribute relevant information to an out dated page. Please The Wordsmith, the punishment of blocking my account does not fit the crime of caring to update a page with factual information. All I have ever wanted is to contribute to this community in an uplifting and factual way. Fewlers ( talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Fewlers ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I should be unblocked because I have a commitment to updating out of date pages. I was unfamiliar with the rules of editing before, so I made a new account. However, due to that I have been blocked. I promise that I will not try to make the same edits again and want to contribute to the community on Wikipedia. I want to learn and get better at editing. I became a bit obsessed with the Jeremy Bloom page because it was the page that I originally noticed needed to be updated. The people who blocked me did not provide a reason outside of a sock puppet account. The page that I was editing had wrong information that I found through research and is still currently up. I have cited my sources. The use of the term "highly successful" was a mistake on my end but one that was not properly explained by others in the community. I want to do good work on this site and the current block on my page prevents me from continuing this work. At the moment the only edits on my page are for Jeremy Bloom because I am unable to edit anything else, which makes it impossible to defend my case as someone who has no connection to Jeremy Bloom and genuinely wanted to improve the page.
Decline reason:
Confirmed to
Jeremybloomfan, despite your false claim above not to be a
WP:DUCK situation and your false claim here to have no connection to
Jeremybloomfan.
Yamla (
talk)
18:03, 9 April 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.
Fewlers ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't say that I have no connection to the page. I admitted that I made the page- I said that I have no connection to Jeremy Bloom the person. I realized that my additions would be seen as biased due to the name (my apologies for not considering this when making the original account it was a joke between myself) as noted. I would like to sincere apologize for not knowing the rules originally and would like to make up for it by being able to be apart of the community. Some people have been on wikipedia for years and know the more intimate rules associated with the site, I would like to one day be one of these people. I was brazen and flew too close to the sun. Forgive me. I would like to make it up to the users of Wikipedia and myself. I know that you must get requests like this often but I do promise to change.
Decline reason:
Since you've basically admitted that you were a sock (your motives don't matter), this is another denial. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:17, 17 April 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.
Hello, Fewlers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Jeremy Bloom did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Panian513 19:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi can you please refer to what sources were not verifiable?
Fewlers (
talk)
22:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I linked all of the changes that I made on a an article that hasn't been updated in 10 years. Can you give me insight? Fewlers ( talk) 13:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Fewlers. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 article subjects 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. "Highly successful" is not neutral. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 22:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a fan of Skiing I noticed that Jeremy Bloom's wikipedia isn't up to date. Can you please give me insight as to what is bias about the edits that I'm making? Fewlers ( talk) 13:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)- Please let me defend my case
Fewlers (
talk)
15:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a duck situation because the information I contributed is factual. I worked very hard to contribute relevant information to an out dated page. Please The Wordsmith, the punishment of blocking my account does not fit the crime of caring to update a page with factual information. All I have ever wanted is to contribute to this community in an uplifting and factual way. Fewlers ( talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Fewlers ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I should be unblocked because I have a commitment to updating out of date pages. I was unfamiliar with the rules of editing before, so I made a new account. However, due to that I have been blocked. I promise that I will not try to make the same edits again and want to contribute to the community on Wikipedia. I want to learn and get better at editing. I became a bit obsessed with the Jeremy Bloom page because it was the page that I originally noticed needed to be updated. The people who blocked me did not provide a reason outside of a sock puppet account. The page that I was editing had wrong information that I found through research and is still currently up. I have cited my sources. The use of the term "highly successful" was a mistake on my end but one that was not properly explained by others in the community. I want to do good work on this site and the current block on my page prevents me from continuing this work. At the moment the only edits on my page are for Jeremy Bloom because I am unable to edit anything else, which makes it impossible to defend my case as someone who has no connection to Jeremy Bloom and genuinely wanted to improve the page.
Decline reason:
Confirmed to
Jeremybloomfan, despite your false claim above not to be a
WP:DUCK situation and your false claim here to have no connection to
Jeremybloomfan.
Yamla (
talk)
18:03, 9 April 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.
Fewlers ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't say that I have no connection to the page. I admitted that I made the page- I said that I have no connection to Jeremy Bloom the person. I realized that my additions would be seen as biased due to the name (my apologies for not considering this when making the original account it was a joke between myself) as noted. I would like to sincere apologize for not knowing the rules originally and would like to make up for it by being able to be apart of the community. Some people have been on wikipedia for years and know the more intimate rules associated with the site, I would like to one day be one of these people. I was brazen and flew too close to the sun. Forgive me. I would like to make it up to the users of Wikipedia and myself. I know that you must get requests like this often but I do promise to change.
Decline reason:
Since you've basically admitted that you were a sock (your motives don't matter), this is another denial. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:17, 17 April 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.