User talk:JusticeOmen

September 2024

Hello, I'm Feeglgeef. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Adam VanHo have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to contribute in a manner that is unconstructive, and for that I apologize. I disagree with the removal of this page from the encyclopedia and I was not aware removing the "removal notice" was not simply my "vote" against it. Thank you. JusticeOmen (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware removing the "removal notice" was not simply my "vote" against it. That seems hard to believe, because you also removed my reply in the AfD. The reply in which I was highlighting likely COI-editing throughout the article's history. You must've been aware you were removing my message, and that's not constructive. You're absolutely entitled to challenge anything I've said, but please don't just delete things. GhostOfNoMan 18:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. ... discospinster _talk 23:09, 15 September 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Good afternoon. I am not a "sockpuppet". I have created this account to respond to the request to remove an entry from the encyclopedia. If I have broken some rule, I apologize. I confess to a lack of familiarity with processes. I believe I am entitled to express my views on the matter. I do not intend to behave destructively, and I reiterate I am not a "sockpuppet" of any sort whatsoever. I did not receive any form of warning or message before this action was taken. I request this block to be lifted. Thank you for your time. JusticeOmen (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. I mean, you weren't even subtle about it. Come on. Yamla (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2024 (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.

I am requesting to be unblocked.

Please refer to my request above @Discospinster. Thank you. JusticeOmen (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your only edits in Wikipedia have been related to this article, similarly to other single-purpose accounts, which raises suspicion. Furthermore, despite your claim that you are entitled to express your views on the matter, you removed the comments of others who supported deleting the article, as well as a comment pointing out the similar behaviour of several other editors, and said that the nomination was frivolous. You will have to convince the administrator reviewing your block that you will contribute positively to the project and not be disruptive. ... discospinster _talk 16:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]