User talk:Peteski132

Thank you for pointing that out about Gary Stevens. It has since been removed. --Hoarse Horse (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyer Speed Figure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champagne Stakes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Goer FYI[edit]

Just so you know, my last edit rearranged a bunch of things but I didn't cut anything significant, I did some rephrasing and killed a few more parentheticals. The big thing is I moved the Sunday Silence rivalry up into the chronology because otherwise it was really awkward to follow the article and things were repeated that didn't have to be. You've actually got this article pretty close to Good article standards and if you put it up, I'd be glad to support your effort and help address anything the reviewers raise; I've run this particular gauntlet before (I have a lot of GA and FA articles) and can usually sort out what's a legitimate request from what's something to not take too seriously. I'd suggest adding a pedigree chart and a chart of his racing record; see what I did at Mucho Macho Man as an example of each, or at Paynter (horse) if you want to see a simpler article that can pass GA level. You also may want to improve the ref formatting; soe is good, others need cleanup. You're making better edits and kudos for that. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wood Memorial is run 4 weeks before the Ky. Derby. And it has been run 4 weeks before the Derby since the 1990's. The fact that it was run only 2 weeks before back then is an important fact. Noting hand rides, under little urging, ridden out,etc are important facts about each individual race, and should be stated with/about that race, not as a whole. Noting the track was playing dull and slow for particular races is noted to explain the slow final times of those races. I feel they are important, but I'd understand if you don't, or if wikipedia doesn't. Peteski132 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong on the Wood - crap, I should know, I watched it this year, same day as Santa Anita Derby. What I was trying to explain to you at the article talk is that without context, all your "facts" are meaningless. My suggestion there is to create a chart with all the statistics, and that way the narratives can discuss things that made each race unique or useful to build the horse's career or whatever. But see Talk:Easy Goer for more. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered in my last post here. I think each individual race had unique characteristics(under little urging, hand ridden, ridden out, hand ride, track was playing slow,etc etc) that would be better told about that race, rather than as a whole. I do not know how to create a chart with all the statistics. IMO, These are articles describing things, not chart stats to me. First, you say certain things should Not be in a summary about career, and others should be. This is contradicting. For each of Cal. Chrome's races there are descriptions of each race ("only mild urging", "minimal urging", etc). "He came in", doesn't sound like "particularly good writing". And I am sure if you look at many thoroughbred horse articles, you would see they need a lot of help. I didn't write them at all. I put context into the important facts I added. Peteski132 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent you are right that each race has unique characteristics, however, when you say "won under a hand ride" seven times, it becomes really boring - connect the dots and show the reader why he or she should care - a summary is good, say that the horse won by his wide margins without need for much urging. You can copy the chart from my Mucho Macho Man article and replace the races. It's tedious, but covers a lot of stuff that's dull to put into a narrative. Otherwise, the reader is going to get so board that they want to poke their eyes out with pins if they try to read it all. (Also, when you have to put a side comment in parentheses every three sentences, that's bad form too, too many asides) I agree that many TB articles need help, I'm actually trying to make you a better writer and, frankly, I put up California Chrome for peer review and you are welcome to go over there and comment, just don't be a troll about it. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Easy Goer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Average Earnings Index (Horse Racing) (June 23)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at User:Peteski132/Average Earnings Index (Horse Racing).
To edit the submission, 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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

APerson (talk!) 21:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peteski, I think I can salvage this, and when I do, I also have autopatrolled rights and can just move it into user space. You can revert anything I suggest, of course, but I like the idea of having an article on AEI and want to see if we can make it work. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Peteski132/Average Earnings Index (Horse Racing) was accepted[edit]

Peteski132/Average Earnings Index (Horse Racing), 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!

JacobiJonesJr (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zayat[edit]

I'll try to help you with assorted cleanup if you are working on the Zayat article. The "cite" tab in the editing window will give you a pull-down menu where you can select "template" and easily add all sourcing stuff and WP will format it for you automatically. Good Luck! Montanabw ^(talk) 05:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belmont Futurity Stakes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Bravo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Easy Goer page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Easy Goer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man O' War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An idea[edit]

On your Easy Goer article, it would be cool for you to add a pedigree chart and a statistics chart. Feel free to steal the chart designs from American Pharoah if you'd like. Doing these can be rather painstaking, though Tigerboy1966 can whip up a pedigree quite quickly. The racing stat charts have no real shortcuts than to go race by race... but it's cool to have. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions on the pedigree and statistics charts. I'd like to get that soon when I have a bit of time, because as you note, they can be rather painstaking and time-consuming. I'd also like to get some photos of Easy Goer into his article, but I have no idea whatsoever about the copyright laws etc, and what are safe, proper photos. I also have never added a photo to any article, as I don't really know how to do it properly. Peteski132 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the horse is deceased, we can use any good image with a "fair use" rationale, as was done with the lead image at Secretariat. Best to use only one, though. The uploading process is kind of a pain in the butt, but I've done it on any number of articles. I'd say if you find one good image that would work for the lead, ping me at my talk page with the link and I will upload it for you. As for the charts, yep, it's painstaking work, but it isn't all that difficult. I'd suggest doing a copypaste of the charts from another article into your sandbox and fix them up there, then put them in the article -- that way, you don't mess up the article while you are ripping your hair out learning chart syntax. Also, if you are going nuts ping WP Horse racing , and someone will probably be able to help. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks so much. I will head over to your talk page with a photo. Peteski132 (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Star of Cozzene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horse of the Year. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Easy Goer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Veitch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Peteski132. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Peteski132. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Peteski132. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Your addition to Jesus has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jesus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 02:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC) p>Talk 02:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Rmhermen (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Peteski132 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 02:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You MUST participate in this discussion to avoid being blocked. At this point, every time you revert to your preferred version you are only extending the length of your eventual block. General Ization <su

Pay attention, please. General Ization ^Talk 02:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop marking your edits as "minor" when they are nothing of the sort, and obviously controversial. See WP:MINOR for policy. General Ization ^Talk 02:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already went to the Talk page with no response. This actually is very "minor" because it already exists in the article under "Jewish" views on Jesus and Christianity. However, facts of the utmost importance (with factual sources cited) belong in the lead. It isn't even the least bit debatable that these basic, fundamental facts of the utmost importance absolutely belong in the lead, and in the article as well. Multiple editors also "went with me" and I see no "discussion" on this on the talk page. Where are all the "major, controversial" objections of this on the Jesus talk page? I see nothing at all. If these important facts (with factual sources cited) have been edited back and forth for 3 to 4 days, why has this not already been discussed by any one on the talk page in the last 3 to 4 days? If multiple people "went with me" and multiple people "went against me," who decides? Most is already in the article down below in the Jewish section. Why are some people having a visceral reaction when these core principles and basic, fundamental facts (with factual sources cited) of the utmost importance are in the lead and article?Peteski132 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peteski132, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

General Ization ^Talk 05:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peteski132. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. ST47 (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2019 (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).

Peteski132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Important facts should be in both the lead and article. It isn't even the least bit debatable that these basic, fundamental facts of the utmost importance absolutely belong in the lead, and in the article as well. Multiple editors also "went with me." This actually is very "minor" because it already exists in the article under "Jewish" views on Jesus and Christianity. However, facts of the utmost importance (with factual sources cited) belong in the lead. Multiple editors also "went with me" and I see no "discussion" on this on the talk page. Where are all the "major, controversial" objections of this on the Jesus talk page? I see nothing at all. If these important facts (with factual sources cited) have been edited back and forth for 3 to 4 days, why has this not already been discussed by any one on the talk page in the last 3 to 4 days? If multiple people "went with me" and multiple people "went against me," who decides? Most is already in the article down below in the Jewish section. Why are some people having a visceral reaction when these core principles and basic, fundamental facts (with factual sources cited) of the utmost importance are in the lead and article? Peteski132 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You created a sock puppet. That's an automatic decline. You can take advantage of the standard offer if you like. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2019 (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.

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).

Peteski132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't create a "sockpuppet" or sockpuppets, I teach advanced religious/theological courses at a school, as well as from home, and this precise topic was currently being discussed between many teachers and students; and they (I didn't "recruit" them) also felt these core principles and basic, fundamental facts (with factual sources cited) should be in the lead/article, so a few of them created Wikipedia usernames/accounts from the same place/same IP address. I assure you and all involved that this was done solely with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation strictly on policy-related points on these basic, important, fundamental facts, and NOT for votes for a consensus nor for recruiting new editors to influence decisions. I assume this is still against Wiki policy (possibly meatpuppetry), but I assure you of my intent, as well as the intent of the other few teachers and students involved. I also didn't realize that the other editors are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. As far as my original claim, I stand by my assertion that important, basic, fundamental facts (with factual sources cited) belong both in the lead and article; and nobody should irrationally censor it nor have visceral reactions toward it.Peteski132 (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. This does not appear to be an instance of good faith. And the relationship between the accounts is closer than you indicate. WP:SO won't be available to you unless you come clean; if you do, it may be available to you in six months, if you make zero edits until then. Yamla (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2019 (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.

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).

Peteski132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am telling the truth, but thanks anyway. Until then? I can't make any edits as I am blocked. Peteski132 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Some ideas for what to do in the meanwhile would be to edit productively on another project that you are not blocked at - such as Simple English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, English Wiktionary, etc. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:36, 16 December 2019 (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.

The Standard Offer is explained at WP:SO. General Ization ^Talk 05:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peteski132, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

FyzixFighter (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]