User talk:Uppertoots

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:

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Fettlemap (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Uppertoots,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jackson Krecioch for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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

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

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jackson Krecioch, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MickyShy (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ashlynnrobertson361 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashlynnrobertson361. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --Blablubbs (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock my account as I am not a sockpuppet. If you review the evidence, you'll see that I have no affiliation the above mentioned user, such as the Editor Interaction Analyzer. I was unaware of this situation, and had spent my time on wikipedia contributing to the best of my ability. I emphatically deny these allegations and I request that I be unblocked. Thx. Uppertoots (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think you are a sockpuppet. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2021 (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.