User talk:Wythy

Your submission at Articles for creation

Frenkel Exercises, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Wythy (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Transcranial direct-current stimulation, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please review what Wikipedia is not.
Please note that medical articles have these additional guidelines:

Cheers. —Telpardec TALK 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK TP. I'll try to find some "reliable sources". However I do think it would be prudent to warn people of the dangers of even small amounts of current through the body. There's a saying among amateur radio enthusiasts in the USA, "It's volts that jolts but mills that kills". The "mills" here being milliamps.

Cheers

February 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Larsen syndrome, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re toothache

Please see Talk:Toothache#Toothache, antibiotics and suicide. Many thanks and best wishes, Lesion (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I see where you are coming from. Kind regards Fletcherbrian (talk)

A page you started (The Third Reich's TV system) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Third Reich's TV system, Fletcherbrian!

Wikipedia editor Roshan014 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This page would be nominated for Speedy Deletetion as this have no Source, categories' & THE PAGE IS Orphan. So, read the rules to create an Article on Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Roshan014's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Proposed deletion of Neurophysiotherapy

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

Dictionary article

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. Rathfelder (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brian Tracy (February 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brian Tracy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Wythy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Immuno-psychiatry

Wikipedia pages describe rather than redirect to other sites like the Immuno-psychiatry does. Your page needs much work.Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Yes. Thanks Wythy (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Johann Christian Süss

Hello, Wythy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Johann Christian Süss, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ueutyi (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Johann Christian Süss for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Johann Christian Süss is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Christian Süss until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ueutyi (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The Great British Bake Off are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany

A tag has been placed on Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler

>he "testament" says Jews are not genetically Jewish. If Hitler wrote that, then I am a Zulu

He said that Judaism is a mental race, you can be jew, but not being poseded by the jewish mentalityn because everybody can be jew, a german can be jew, an arab can be jew, so its mental but yet, you didnt read the whole testament, he said that semit jew = race, because they have among, the same Nose, genetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wythy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Lithium. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Diane Abbott. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cheryl

Hi, Wythy! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Cheryl, a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Cheryl. Thanks and best regards! Linguist111 (away) (my main account) 08:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Antibacterial growth promoter

Hello Wythy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Antibacterial growth promoter for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Antibiotic use in livestock.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, 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.

Nick Moyes (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Andrew Wakefield are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. diff [1]. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wythy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello, I'm Linguist111. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cheryl (singer) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 14:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it/them myself. Thank you Wythy (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DBaK (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These recent edits are definitely not typical of your editing patterns and behavior and I fear that this account may have been compromised. Because of this, I have blocked this account until we can figure out what's going on and why... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The edits were by me. I did not realise the edits would be visible if I reversed them immediately.

I will not do it ever again.

Please unblock me.

Thank you for your patience with my silliness. Wythy (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this isn't the first time the user has vandalized that article. In 2016 they did the same thing, only with their sock account to evade scrutiny. Sro23 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked you have to use the unblock template. The syntax is {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. But I'd advise you to read WP:GAB first. Thanks. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 21:24, 6 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not realize that the edits I made would be immediately visible. I am technically naive. I did not realize the seriousness of what I thought at the time was experimentation. Please unblock me. I am really sorry. I will not repeat my mistakes. I have contributed useful articles to Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia an excellent source for information. I have contributed much useful information and articles to Wikipedia in the past. I will be doing so in the future if given the opportunity. To repeat: I will not make any further objectionable edits to articles. Thank you. Wythy (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After talking to you below and considering your explanation over what happened and why, given the severe violations you caused I cannot unblock your account in good faith and with the confidence that this is the right thing to do. Read Wikipedia's standard offer, complete it fully, make another unblock request in six months and I'll unblock you and give you another chance then. But sorry, I'm declining your current unblock request here and I hope to see you back in six months. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:53, 7 April 2018 (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.

Dude... What?!! You've made over 1,000 contributions to this project - how did you not think those edits would be immediately visible?!! And even if they weren't immediately visible, why on Earth would you make such edits like that in the first place... like anywhere? I'm sorry man, but you need to address these specific concerns and answer my questions here before I consider accepting your unblock request... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my perhaps unhelpful 2c but FWIW I call bull on this being the real user ..... You don't make 1,170 edits between 2011/2013-2018 and not know your edits are live ?, There's something about this that smells very very fishy and so personally I think the block should stay, –Davey2010^Talk 12:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I really *am* the real user Wythy.

I really did not think the edits would be immediately visible. As difficult as that may be to believe, that is the case.

FWIW, I have been going through a stressful time personally and my behavior has been kaput. I think I am through that period now. I do not want to publish the personal issues I have been facing for obvious reasons.

I sincerely apologize for my behavior.

I will not repeat these mistakes.

Please accept my apologies.

Thank you for your forbearance. Wythy (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

I do think I have been a useful contributor to Wikipedia, despite the huge mistake I made recently.

For instance there was no article on "Frenkel Exercises" before me ( I was user Fletcherbrian).

Any reference to Frenkel Exercises on the internet was extremely sparse.

Immediately my article was published, the interest in the medical world in Frenkel Exercises blossomed.

A quick survey on the usage of "Frenkel Exercises" on the internet will show this to be the case.

I humbly request that at some point in the future you lift my ban so I can contribute, in however small a way, to medical knowledge again.

Thank you for reading this Wythy (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wythy - I understand that your account wasn't compromised and it was you making these edits - that's not a questioned issue anymore. I completely understand that you seem to be going through personal hardships and stressful personal events right now - I've gone through many tough times myself and I know how it can take a toll on someone over time. But you need to understand that Wikipedia is not therapy and while your personal stress may partially explain your edits as being a contributing factor, it absolutely does not excuse them. I'm typically known as the admin whose "too nice" or "who assumes good faith too much" (by some haha) but those edits were very severe violations of Wikipedia's BLP policy and to the level where they had to be suppressed. Therefore, due to the extreme severity of your offenses, I do not accept your responses and the (lack of) your answers to my questions as sufficient enough where I feel that unblocking you is the right thing to do. You need to review Wikipedia's standard offer and come back in six months and after completely spotless issues and with no additional violations of policy - and request an unblock then. If you do this, I will unblock you then. But sorry, not right now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, thank you for taking the time to deal with my offenses.

I respect and accept your decision.

My very best wishes to you. Wythy (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I have emailed you but I have not received a reply. Please check your emails. Thank you. Wythy (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this message was from you? See my response if so. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, six months have elapsed since my block and I wish to request an unblock.

Further to your questions as to why I committed the offences: I was tinkering with Wikipedia without realising that these would appear on the website. In retrospect I should have used the Sandbox for this. Nevertheless I fully appreciate the gravity of my very severe violations of Wikipedia's BLP policy.

I shall not repeat them.

I wish to contribute again to Wikipedia in a constructive way.

An instance of such constructive writing is the Wikipedia article I began Frenkel exercises.

Before I published this article on treating cerebellar ataxia, there were very few links to Frenkel Exercises on the web. Following my article, there are innumerable articles (a quick use of Bing shows 155,000 at the moment).

Thank you for taking the time to read this request. Wythy (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's October!

Dear Wythy, you might want to note that six months have elapsed per Oshwah's comments above, and it is therefore an appropriate time for you to request unblock and come back and do useful work! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DBak, thank you for the message!

How do I go about requesting unblock?

Thank you for your help. Wythy (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please have another look at Oshwa's message in the box (light orange? orangey brown?) up there somewhere and at the advice from Linguist111. The crucial bits from Linguist111 are "The syntax is {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. But I'd advise you to read WP:GAB first." Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2018-08#Wythy would appear to constitute block evasion in August. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did that IP commit a lot of evil acts here while "block-evading", or just leave that single two-sentence message simply asking how to contact the blocking admin? If the latter, would that be a very serious offence? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see it was just that one message. Technically the standard offer requires six months of no editing whatsoever but it isn’t set in stone and exceptions can be made, I just thought this should be mentioned. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Beeblebrox for the clarification. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Oshwah, DBaK, and all administrators involved in this matter: six months have elapsed since my block and I wish to request an unblock. Further to your questions as to why I committed the offences: I was tinkering and experimenting with Wikipedia without realising that these would appear on the website. In retrospect I should have used the Sandbox for this experimentation. Nevertheless that is no excuse whatsoever, and I fully appreciate the gravity of my very severe violations of Wikipedia's BLP policy. I shall not repeat them. I very strongly desire to contribute again to Wikipedia in the constructive and thoughtful way which I dare to say is my usual modus operandi. An instance of such constructive writing is the Wikipedia article I began Frenkel exercises. Before I published this article on treating cerebellar ataxia, there were very few links to Frenkel Exercises on the web. Following my article, there are innumerable articles (a quick use of Bing shows 155,000 at the moment). In spite of my very serious violations of Wikipedia's BLP policy, which I fully acknowledge and deeply regret, I think I have positive contributions to make to the valuable Wikipedia knowledge base. Thank you for taking the time to read this request Wythy (talk) 6:40 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Decline reason:

procedural decline I have just converted this to an oversight block. I apologize for the timing, I should have done so as soon as it seemed evident you were going to appeal, but it simply isn’t possible to review the edits preceding the block without oversight access. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2018 (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.

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges regarding information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

Hi Wythy, I don't think that my attempts to help have done you or anyone else any good, and I can see that, procedurally speaking, you know what you are doing, so I think I will wish you all the best, hope for an outcome that is satisfactory as far as possible for both you and the encyclopaedia, and duck out of here. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBak, thank you for helping me!

I'm not sure I understand the reason I am now banned. It seems to be a different offence from the original one of the Biography of Living Persons offence. But I can't figure out what it is.

Anyway, thanks again! Wythy (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made were supressed from public view. So only persons with access to the suppression tool can see them now. It is not a new offense, it’s still about the same thing and is just a block, not a site ban, but you need to appeal by emailing arbcom as rank-and-file admins cannot evaluate your appeal and the details cannot be publicly discussed. I probably should’ve done this six months ago when the edits were suppressed, so that’s on me and again I apologize for not doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beeblebrox. I emailed arbcom about a week ago. When can I expect a response? Thanks for your help. Wythy (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should’ve at least acknowledged your email by now, but they often take some time to decide things. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you Beeblebrox. Wythy (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dbak, Beeblebrox, and others who have been involved and helped me here: thank you so much!

Here is the reply from The Arbitration Committee.

In it, there is no explanation of their decision, nor any evidence of who in arbcom was involved, and most worryingly, no specific offence is stated.

If an offence has been committed then the alleged perpetrator is entitled to know exactly what they are accused of.

Procedure: ‘Justice Must Not Only be Done, but Must be Seen to be Done’

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/justice_must_be_seen_to_be_done.html

Here is the statement :

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and declines to unblock at this time.

You may re-apply to have your ban reviewed again in six months' time. There is no automatic entitlement to an unban, however, so you will need to provide us with good reasons why we should do so. Additionally, we would expect to see evidence of insight into the conduct that caused the problems in the first place as well as commitment to changed and well-controlled behavior. When contacting this committee or responding to any of our messages, please ensure that arbcom-en@wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message. Messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read. Sincerely, The Arbitration Committee

Wythy (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]