User talk:Simon Mugava

Simon Mugava (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Simon Mugava, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of 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! Jbh ^Talk 15:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Uebert angel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Uebert angel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Uebert Angel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Uebert Angel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kleuske (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Uebert Angel

The article Uebert Angel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to fail WP:BIO or at least be minor enough to be borderline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I see that you have been editing the article on Simon Mugava. I would recommend that you read Wikipedia's guidance on conflict of interest and on autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! 220 of ^Borg 12:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of UEBERT ANGEL FOUNDATION

The article UEBERT ANGEL FOUNDATION has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable foundation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello, Simon Mugava. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

No relation just a topic of interest to meSimon Mugava (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC) In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID)[reply]

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Deb (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Santi Cazorla, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misplace an external link in the article text, as you did in this edit. I have turned it into a reference, see Help:Referencing for beginners, and then cured the fact that it was a bare url. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language like "a massive business empire with a broad range of interests which continues to grow" is very far from being neutral and despite your statement that you do not have a conflict of interest, certainly makes it seem as if you do and are here to promote Mr Angel. Please do not continue to add language like this to the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no conflict of interest. It is an article that I'm interested I'm working on it. I have also other religious leaders that I'm going to start working on. It's a shame the world does not want to acknowledge them but they acknowledge pointless creatures e.g octopus, a place etc not world leaders. Simon Mugava (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: discretionary sanctions relevant to your editing of Uebert Angel and related pages

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have in all fairness addressed why I'm interested in editing this page. We are saying the same thing with other editors. Just that other editors are preferring to start with other topics. Other editors also agree that the person is definitely worth talking about on wikipedia. I request this to be removed on my talk page.Simon Mugava (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it yourself if you like, but please read it carefully first. (Removal of a post from your page is allowed, but it's taken as proof that you have read it.) I have posted it because the warnings you have received don't seem to have impressed you much. If you don't start collaborating with others and listening to what more experienced editors tell you about sourcing and other policies, you run the risk of being topic banned from the article. That would mean you wouldn't be allowed to edit it any more. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Uebert Angel. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) After the notice above (time: 18:16), you edit-warred your preferred version back into the article (time: 18:34) without a single word on the talk page. I've taken the time to explain the problems with your edit on the talk page. Please read the points I've made and let's try to move forward collaboratively. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the timing of your last edit relative to the above notice, but if you insist on trying to edit-war your preferred text into the article again, or fail to engage on the talk page when objections are raised, I will request Bishonen to topic ban you from this article. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised my concerns already concerning this article. How come other editors are not being banned its just me? I'm pointing out facts that exist and they have citation. Just because one or 2 editors feel it's not right or they want to start with religion side not business doesn't mean all is not true. If anything we all know its true about this individual so lets work to make this article better not war edit.Simon Mugava (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from Uebert Angel and all related pages. Please read the topic ban policy to see what a "topic ban" is.

You have been sanctioned for continuing your tendentious editing of Uebert Angel, after being alerted to the discretionary sanctions in force for biography articles, and without taking any notice of what people tell you on the article talkpage or indeed on your own user talkpage. For example, this post warned you against cherrypicking nice-sounding phrases which do not represent the source accurately, but unfortunately you ignored it, didn't post any response on the talkpage, but instead simply reinserted the very same "nice" phrases. That's just one example of your disruptive editing of this article. I realize you are a new user who doesn't know much about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but when a new user persistently ignores information about those policies and guidelines and keeps wasting other editors' time, with no signs of improvement or good will, they will eventually be removed from the article they disrupt. If you violate this topic ban, you will be blocked from editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen | talk 20:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC). @Bishonen I have tried to appeal this block on your talk page but i can't unfortunately. Anyways I don't think it is fair to be blocked for editing because all my edits based on true facts that were cited. I am not the on who started edit war. I was outlining real truth and facts. Believe you me I have done a research on this article. I have spent hours and days looking for sources to cite here. It is a shame that I would be blocked for writing the truth. Other editors agree that this person is o noteworthy and the article is true but however back to differ on whether to start the article with his religious side of things or his business side of things. I mentioned in my comments that business should start because thats how he became known then ventured into ministry. So i don't know how that is a violation. Simon Mugava (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to appeal the block on my page, but here on your own, which is the only page you can edit when you're blocked. (Appeal the block below, not the topic ban above! You can't appeal the ban right now, when you've been blocked for violating it. Of course you can appeal your ban when the block expires, provided you don't violate it again.) Just do like it says in my block notice below, and first read the guide to appealing blocks. (Are you clicking on any of my links?) If you have trouble getting the template right, someone will come and help you; just write your appeal at the bottom of this page. But I can tell you now that nobody is going to unblock you for saying "i don't know how that is a violation", when you have been told that you've been blocked for violating your topic ban — not for some vague general "violation". I really don't know how I can put it any more clearly. I don't have the impression that you're even trying to understand me, but perhaps that's unfair. Is this a language problem? Bishonen | talk 01:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to appeal this topic ban. In my opinion myself and other editors were saying the same thing. It was a misunderstanding of quotations and citations. Some editors argued that the sources were not reliable but for me they are national newspaper therefore reliable. I do understand why i was banned and will cooperate with other editors to make this article better inline with wikipedia editing policies. I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead in the future.Simon Mugava (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

Simon, topic banned means you're not allowed to edit the article or its talkpage at all any longer. You have violated your topic ban from Uebert Angel and related pages with this edit. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Why? Because of the truth ?Simon Mugava (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you have demonstrated a complete disdain for the opinions of multiple other editors. You have no monopoly on the truth and other editors' opinions are just as valid as yours. When you have learned how to work with other editors, you'll be welcome to return to the topic of Uebert Angel. While you're learning, you will have to find other topics in Wikipedia to edit or risk losing your editing privileges altogether. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating your topic ban over and over. I see your comments above, questioning the ban. That doesn't make any difference; as I said in my ban notice, "Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful". And you haven't even appealed, you just ignore the ban. You have been blocked for 48 hours. If you violate the ban again when you return, you will be blocked for longer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: Bishonen | talk 23:59, 17 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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal this block. In my opinion myself and other editors were saying the same thing. It was a misunderstanding of quotations and citations. Some editors argued that the sources were not reliable but for me they are national newspaper therefore reliable. I do understand why Im blocked but the block is no longer necessary because I understand why I am blocked, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. Simon Mugava (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The problem here is that *you* are topic banned from Uebert Angel and all associated articles, which means that you must not edit the article Uebert Angel itself or any other page (including talk pages etc) associated with it while the ban is in force. You continued to edit in that area after having had your ban imposed, and that is why you are now blocked. The other editors in the dispute are not topic banned, so their editing is not relevant here.

If, as you say, it was all a misunderstanding and you know what you did wrong, you need to appeal the ban itself and not simply go back to editing that topic, and how to do that is explained in the message in the "Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction" section above.

You cannot, however, appeal the topic ban yet, while you are blocked. You can either wait for the block to expire first (it's a short one, and it will give you time to read about and understand your topic ban and how to appeal), or you can make another unblock request in which you pledge to not edit anything related to Uebert Angel until after you have appealed the topic ban and had it lifted.

Finally, please be warned that if you continue to defy your topic ban after this block expires, you risk being blocked for considerably longer, and it would damage your chances of having the ban lifted.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 18 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.

Simon, thank you for appealing. I have moved your unblock request out of my block template down here, to be its own separate template. That way, it contains code that will call an uninvolved admin to this page to review your block. To the reviewing admin: this new user was blocked for violating their topic ban They seem to have difficulty taking that on board. Any help in explaining would be appreciated. Please note that the block too is an arbitration enforcement sanction, logged here. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your topic ban again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving post about appealing topic ban to the bottom of the page

(Moved from higher up.) I would like to appeal this topic ban. In my opinion myself and other editors were saying the same thing. It was a misunderstanding of quotations and citations. Some editors argued that the sources were not reliable but for me they are national newspaper therefore reliable. I do understand why i was banned and will cooperate with other editors to make this article better inline with wikipedia editing policies. I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead in the future.Simon Mugava (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, it makes everything simpler if you please post at the bottom of the page, so I don't have to look for your post all over, and don't myself have to post all over. For this reason, I have moved your post down. Hope you don't mind, and please stick to the bottom or the page from now on.

You are no longer blocked, so you can edit the pages where you're supposed to appeal a topic ban, which is not here but either at WP:AN, WP:AE or WP:ARCA. (I realize our customs are baffling to new users — sorry about that.) Click on those links and take a look at those three different boards and see where you think is best for you to appeal. Only one of them, please. This is the difference between them: at WP:AN, the community will review and discuss your ban; at WP:AE, uninvolved admins will; and at WP:ARCA, the arbitration committee will. I would recommend WP:AE as most likely to come to a decision at all — WP:AN gets quite messy and desultory, and WP:ARCA tends to be glacially slow. That's my opinion, anyway. Also, you need to consider how you appeal. You're copypasting bits from the Guide to appealing blocks, which admins tend to recognize as such (same as you did in your block appeal) to say you understand why you were banned, but that's pretty unconvincing when you also say it was all a misunderstanding, and, in fact, you show that you don't understand why you were banned. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I wouldn't be doing you a favour encouraging you to appeal in an unhelpful way. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Adding, oh no, I see you have violated your block again, and been blocked again. You can't post a ban appeal, then. Plus, you'll be blocked indefinitely next time if you keep doing this. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen Hi I have been unblocked and now I am blocked again. I do not understand this. It seems as if there is no help for new editors whatsoever and the only solution is being blocked. I just made my first edit after being blocked and i am blocked. I did not even add any information I just deleted the information about Uebert Angel Mudzanire. Proof that he was called Mudzanire will need the editors to provide a birth certificate or passport copy. No one knows his real name out of all the editors. Reliable sources for example a journalist of the BBC has called him Uebert Angel. Even Forbes magazine. Information about the Mudzanire name is not coming from reliable sources and mainly is from blogs. I have mentioned that I will not write anymore information on the article unless its verifiable. And the name Uebert Angel is verifiable. Would be you please reconsider this block.Simon Mugava (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told many, many, many times that you're not allowed to edit Uebert Angel while you're topic banned — and now that your first block for doing so has expired, you did it again. (After being told, in your first block notice, that "if you violate the ban again when you return, you will be blocked for longer." Which is exactly what happened.) I've tried, and others have tried, very hard to explain to you what a topic ban is, and that you're topic banned as long as you haven't appealed the ban and it hasn't been lifted. I can't help you further. I'm a volunteer like you, and my wikipedia time is limited. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I can see you desperately want to remove the name Mudzanire from the article. That's not going to happen, because as you can see if you read Talk:Uebert Angel #Name change, three of the seven sources used in the article refer to Angel as Mudzanire. If you think that other editors need to "provide a provide a birth certificate or passport copy" to verify Mudzanire, then why shouldn't you be required to "provide a provide a birth certificate or passport copy" to verify the name "Angel"? Answer: that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't need birth certificates or passports to see that someone uses or has used a particular name when it's apparent for all to see from the reliable sources. If you want to dismiss 'AfricanSeer.com', 'Verbum et Ecclesia', and 'Bible in Africa Studies' (published by the University of Bamberg) as "mainly blogs", then you should have made that case before you got yourself topic banned. I doubt anybody would agree with your categorisation anyway. If you can't accept how Wikipedia works as a collaborative project, then I seriously doubt that you'll ever be able to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia.

When your block expires in a week, you could: (1) appeal your topic ban at WP:AN, WP:AE or WP:ARCA; (2) start editing other articles that have nothing to do with Uebert Angel. Let me make this clear: if you edit Uebert Angel again without successfully appealing your topic ban, you will simply be blocked again, possibly for a month or possibly indefinitely.

If there's anything that I've written here that you don't understand, please ask me to explain it, although that is not an invitation to discuss Uebert Angel, because you're banned from doing that. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have my block expired? I didn't get a notification ? Simon Mugava (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get notifications, it just expires after the specified time. So yes, it has expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you can you please help me to appeal my topic ban? @Boing Simon Mugava (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a read of the topic ban notice, you'll see it says...

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

I suggest a request to the admin who imposed the ban, at User talk:Bishonen, might be your best first step. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that on his talk page but no response can you please contact him on my behalf @Boing said Zebedde?Simon Mugava (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He replied yesterday, see User talk:Bishonen#Topic ban appeal. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mkdw ^talk 22:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked for use of multiple accounts. I have not edited on wikipedia for a while. Please explain this block honestly? I do not have any multiple accounts as you are accusing me. This is a joke honestly. I took a short break from editing now I'm saying let me come and check whats been going on here and i find a block waiting for me. wow. Simon Mugava (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on the information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon Mugava/Archive. You need to follow the unblocking instructions in the box above to request an unblock. Jbh ^Talk 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shepherd Bushiri

Hello Simon Mugava,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Shepherd Bushiri for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

DrStrauss talk 09:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]