Hello, Aliawalsh22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)@Timtrent: . Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note your declared COI over Wachman.

1. Is this your sole conflict of interest?
2. please note the line above: "In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Is your COI personal or professional? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Max Wachman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aliawalsh22! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

You appear to have a basic misunderstanding of referencing. Please read WP:REFB. Your references must be about Wachman not links to various houses, other people, etc etc.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Max Wachman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Timtrent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cian O'Connor have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC) @Timtrent: Hi, Thank you very much for your comment. I am new to wikipedia and I am just trying to figure it out to be helpful to the community. Upon revision, I have noticed that you are correct in saying part of the text of my edited article (Cian O'Connor) seems promotional, I have tried to edit it but I have not been successful as my account has been blocked. Please note my intentions are innocent, I am just trying to update the information accordingly. I would very much appreciate an unblock to be able to edit the promotional section to be non-promotional and according to the wikipedia guidelines. Do you have any suggestions for me?. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aliawalsh22. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Cian O'Connor, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Aliawalsh22. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aliawalsh22|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC) @Timtrent:Hi again, I am not financially involved, I am a relative who wanted to add information about the person's business. I now realise it seems promotional. I would very much like to fix my edit if you give me the chance to. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Draft:Max Wachman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. The COI template is a necessary template, The AFC review history helps future reviewers 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)@Timtrent: Hi, again I appologize, I believed eliminating the templates was only on my profile as it made it easier for me to edit and view the. full picture. I did not mean to be disruptive or disrespectful, I know understand they are not to be removed. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Timtrent:Hi, I did not realise I had to answer the appeals, that is why you have not received a response. I now completely understand that messages must be responded to, to be able to build a community. I would really like to be a part of it and be helpful. From now on I will reply to all messages I receive. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must answer this mandatory question before you edit further. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)@Timtrent:Hi, same reply as before. I am very sorry about not replying earlier, I was not aware I had to. I will now reply without fail. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Timtrent:Hi, same reply as before. I am very sorry about not replying earlier, I was not aware I had to. I will now reply without fail. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits 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.
You must take this seriously You have been blocked on Wikimedia Commons for uploading copyright material, which has all been deleted or is in the process of deletion. You must not add copyright pictures to articles here. You are heading for an indefinite block.
Instead of ignoring these warnings you must engage with editors here. Not doing so is the height of folly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Timtrent: Hello, I believed I had done the correct referencing as the images attached were made by a personal photographer and free to use to the athlete. I am very interested in learning how the correct referencing should be done. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you are being asked formal questions it is viewed as very unwise to ignore those questions. You have now received a total of six warnings. You are already blocked, albeit for three days this time, on Wikimedia Commons. Engaging with editors here is not optional in these circumstances. Lack of engagement is taken as WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and is deprecated. If you wish to add value here then you need to work with the community, not against it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Timtrent:Hi, I am very sorry I upset the community, it was really not my intention as I really appreciate all the work that you editors have been putting in over the years. I now know I must answer warnings and I will do so without fail. I would appreciate a second chance to be part of the community. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}.  GedUK  13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the block is for all the stuff listed above, I've just used the wrong template/block reason. I stand by the block. GedUK  07:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC) @Ged UK: Hi, again I appologize, I believed eliminating the templates was only on my profile as it made it easier for me to edit and view the. full picture. I did not mean to be disruptive or disrespectful, I know understand they are not to be removed. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think "vandalism" was the wrong word, but some of the problems with your editing are persistent promotional editing, editing contrary to the COI guidelines, almost certainly undisclosed paid editing, failure to respond to contacts from other editors, and persistent inappropriate removal of templates. If you are to continue editing Wikipedia you must stop all those problems. JBW (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC) @JBW: Hi, I am very sorry it seems I have been disruptive, this was not my intention whatsoever. I am new to Wikipedia, I have been trying to add information to be helpful to the wikipedia community. I understand you all work very hard to make the net work truthful and helpful to viewers. I understand some newly added information seems to be promotional, this is not the intention. I am very willing to change the information to be able to be helpful to the community and provide the right information. I would like to edit my misleading mistakes, if my block was kindly removed. I now understand more about wikipedia and I promise to not be disruptive, answer any warnings given, and provide non promotional information. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see your talk page on Commons, where the comments left for you are broadly appropriate here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your current block, which I hope will be your only block, has expired. Please edit wisely from now on.

Your first act must be to answer the questions above about paid editing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC) @Timtrent:Hi, I am not paid to do any edits, I am editing a page of a relative to update and provide useful information to the community. I would really love to be given a second chance and learn with you to be as helpful as I can. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Cian O'Connor. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sumanuil. 20:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC) @Sumanuil: Hi, I am very sorry it seems I have been disruptive, this was not my intention whatsoever. I am new to Wikipedia, I have been trying to add information to be helpful to the wikipedia community. I understand you all work very hard to make the net work truthful and helpful to viewers. I understand some newly added information seems to be promotional, this is not the intention. I am very willing to change the information to be able to be helpful to the community and provide the right information. I would like to edit my misleading mistakes, if my block was kindly removed. I now understand more about wikipedia and I promise to not be disruptive, answer any warnings given, and provide non promotional information. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)J @Timtrent: Hi, I am very sorry it seems I have been disruptive. I was not aware of not being allowed to remove the templates. I promise to never do it again. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your editing behaviour here, coupled with your lack of communication. The thread is User:Aliawalsh22 deceptive edit summaries, suspected paid editing, refusal to engage. Thank you.

This is a very strong suggestion to you that you participate in that discussion. Wikipedia is run by the community, and our administrators have the duty of ensuring that we all adhere to the community rules and guidelines here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)@Timtrent: Hi, I appreciate and admire the work you and your fellow administrators do. I am so very sorry for being so difficult, I did not know much about wikipedia before. I do now and promise to follow the guidelines and ask for help when needed. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing there has now been rendered impossible because of your block, below. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you have continued with all of the problematic editing patterns mentioned in various messages above. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to use this method, but unfortunately nothing else works: you make no response to messages, and a short-term block failed to get you to take notice. "Indefinitely" does not mean "for ever"; it means that no time limit has been set, but the block can be removed if you start communicating, and convey to an administrator that you will in future edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and community standards.

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 ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Hi, I am very sorry for having been so difficult in the past. I was still trying to find my feet within the community. I really want to be a positive impact to the community and helpful to all readers. I would appreciate your consideration for unblocking me to be able to communicate with editors and administrators in a better way. I would also like to correct my mistakes on the pages to be able to create a good page for viewers to get their information, according of course to the community guidelines. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that instead of requesting an unblock you have attempted to evade the block by using another account, with which you have again infringed Wikipedia's copyright policy, and removed a maintenance template relating to undisclosed paid editing. Evading blocks by using other accounts is perhaps the single most effective way of ensuring that administrators will not unblock you, even if you address the other reasons for the block. I strongly advise you not to do so again, if you hope to ever return to editing. Also, Wikipedia policy is that any edits, no matter how good or bad, made while evading a block, can be reverted on sight, so you will achieve nothing by doing so. Why on earth don't you just start cooperating, and conforming to Wikipedia's policies? If you did that then you could carry on editing, but instead you are choosing to pursue a course which will at the least cause you delays in editing, and at the worst prevent any of what you are trying to do being achieved. JBW (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)@JBW:[reply]

Hi, I tried to create a second account with my same name to be able to reach out to you administrators to be able to appeal my block. I did not intend to make the situation worse. I am an equestrian trying to help out my relative with updating his page in regards to his global results and achievements. I would really appreciate a second chance within this community to be able to have a positive impact. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You "tried to create a second account ... to be able to reach out to ... administrators to be able to appeal [your] block"? Then why is it that the only editing you did with that account was changing images in an article, and you did nothing remotely related to appealing the block? Am I missing some perfectly logical explanation for that? JBW (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2022 (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).

Aliawalsh22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am very sorry for being disruptive, this was not my intention. I use wikipedia to edit solely one page belonging to a relative. I do not want to be disruptive, only update the page accordingly Aliawalsh22 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This only barely begins to address the issues with your editing. Please review the posts on this page carefully and specifically address the points made. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2022 (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.

@331dot: Hi, thank you for your reply. I am new to wikipedia and just trying to figure things out to be helpful to the community. Please may you give me some guidance on how to remove my block? I have identified the parts of the article text that seem promotional and I would like to edit them to a neutral point of view. In regards to my previous warnings, I was unaware that these had to be answered to. I will do so immediately to explain my reasons. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2022 (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).

Aliawalsh22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After doing more research on the topic, it appears I can some what be related to a conflict of interest with the article edited. I understand that my conflict of interest violates wikipedia's policies. To make this right I will declare having a conflict of interest and work to fix the issues that this has generated to the pages I contributed to. As a first step I request deleting the paragraph found under Cian O'Connor named as Karlswood Stables, I now understand that there is not a neutral point of view and does not adhere to the 'biographies of a living person policy' and therefore should not be on the page. I would like to amend that, however from now on I will put forward official requests so that eligible editors can review and edit the content if deemed relevant. On a further note, I did not know that images must have one of the accepted licensing such as cc-by or cc-by-sa. I will not make this mistake again. I have researched images that comply with the licensing and I can suggest those to be used instead. Additionally, I did not check my notifications and therefore never saw my warnings, hence not replying to them. I now check my inbox on a daily basis and will reply to all warnings immediately. I have learned that what I did was wrong. I have done research and I have learned how to make meaningful contributions abiding by the policies. I strongly believe I can be a useful contributor to wikipedia and it's community.In regards to creating a second account, I admit to doing so as I wanted to correct my previous mistakes as soon as possible. I thought that a new account would be the fastest way. I did not take in to account wikipedias values when doing that. It was poor judgement. As for removing tags, I believed those were the warnings directed to me, and once I had seen them they could be removed. I now know to not touch them as they are valuable information for the community. My experience and point of view on wikipedia has changed since this situation, the policies and peer reviewing makes wikipedia a reliable encyclopaedia, my understanding and knowledge on the platform has changed for the better. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per our conversation that took place on IRC in the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel, your account is globally locked. This means that you are blocked from logging into your account anywhere and on any project under the Wikimedia Foundation. You must appeal your global lock with the Stewards before we could even consider unblocking you here. I provided you the link to the necessary page on IRC that will instruct you on how to accomplish this. As discussed, I am going to decline your unblock request. Come back when your global lock request appeal is accepted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:08, 9 December 2022 (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).

Aliawalsh22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After doing more research on the topic, it appears I can some what be related to a conflict of interest with the article edited. I understand that my conflict of interest violates wikipedia's policies. To make this right I will declare having a conflict of interest and work to fix the issues that this has generated to the pages I contributed to. As a first step I request deleting the paragraph found under Cian O'Connor named as Karlswood Stables, I now understand that there is not a neutral point of view and does not adhere to the 'biographies of a living person policy' and therefore should not be on the page. I would like to amend that, however from now on I will put forward official requests so that eligible editors can review and edit the content if deemed relevant. On a further note, I did not know that images must have one of the accepted licensing such as cc-by or cc-by-sa. I will not make this mistake again. I have researched images that comply with the licensing and I can suggest those to be used instead. Additionally, I did not check my notifications and therefore never saw my warnings, hence not replying to them. I now check my inbox on a daily basis and will reply to all warnings immediately. I have learned that what I did was wrong. I have done research and I have learned how to make meaningful contributions abiding by the policies. I strongly believe I can be a useful contributor to wikipedia and it's community.In regards to creating a second account, I admit to doing so as I wanted to correct my previous mistakes as soon as possible. I thought that a new account would be the fastest way. I did not take in to account wikipedias values when doing that. It was poor judgement. As for removing tags, I believed those were the warnings directed to me, and once I had seen them they could be removed. I now know to not touch them as they are valuable information for the community. My experience and point of view on wikipedia has changed since this situation, the policies and peer reviewing makes wikipedia a reliable encyclopaedia, my understanding and knowledge on the platform has changed for the better. Aliawalsh22 (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per our conversation that took place on IRC in the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel, your account is globally locked. This means that you are blocked from logging into your account anywhere and on any project under the Wikimedia Foundation. You must appeal your global lock with the Stewards before we could even consider unblocking you here. I provided you the link to the necessary page on IRC that will instruct you on how to accomplish this. As discussed, I am going to decline your unblock request. Come back when your global lock request appeal is accepted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:09, 9 December 2022 (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.

• Please be aware that pictures, files, are handled at WIkimedia Commons. On Commons it seems to have taken you a great length of time to learn that you need correct licencing. See c:User talk:Aliawalsh22. You are blocked there. Any unblock request for Commons must happen on Commons.

Here, on the English Langunage Wikipedia, you have been aware of WP:COI. You made a declaration on your user page on 2 October 2022. Yet you say in this ubblock request After doing more research on the topic, it appears I can some what be related to a conflict of interest with the article edited. I understand that my conflict of interest violates wikipedia's policies.. If you did not need to research COI for Wachman why did you need to do research to understand the rest?

The administrator considering your request may wish to discuss this point with you.

I have always felt you might be a useful editor. Your topic knowledge is excellent. The question is whether your contributions are more trouble than they are worth, and also whether you write, will write, or have written fancruft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed POV from the paragraph "As a first step I request deleting the paragraph found under Cian O'Connor named as Karlswood Stables" whcih is not quite as you requested, but will suffice. the paragraph as it stands is neutral, could doubtless benefit from improvement and expansion, but no longer causes concern. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This account was unlocked by the Stewards in response to VTRS Ticket #2022120910003934 in which I feel they indicated sufficient understanding of what lead to the lock and an communicate their intent to avoid that conduct in the future. I've explained their next step will be to request an unblock on the applicable projects as the account being unlocked has no bearing on individual projects. Operator873 ^connect 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873 Thank you for this action. I have every expectation that this editor will become a useful and specialist topic editor. I will welcome a considered unblock request from them. By this message I suggest to them that they take their time, read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and make one, excellent unblock request.

They may be unaware, even you you have probably told them, that they need to make a separate appeal on any project, such as Wikimedia Commons, that they are blocked from, because blocks are local administrative actions.

For clarity, I am not an administrator anywhere and have simply recognised this editor's potential. I cannot unblock. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Yes I've provided them with what their next steps should be and managed their expectations. Specifically that I could only unlock the account and that action did not gaurantee an unblock by the community. Operator873 ^connect 19:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aliawalsh22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia community. My name is Alia Walsh, I am an equestrian who is very involved in the Equestrian Industry and I have a lot of knowledge on the current international equestrians. I recently joined Wikipedia to be able to make some slight changes to some equestrian's pages - who I am related to. Unfortunately, I did not know enough about Wikipedia to make successful edits. This lead to my 'indefinite block'. I would like to have the chance to explain myself, to redeem your trust and have a second chance in the wikipedia community, which I very much want to be a part of. First all, I would like to express my appreciation to Wikipedia stewards and editors like yourselves, as well as my admiration to the work you and the large number of editors do. Without your dedication, Wikipedia would never be as successful as it is today, it is incredible the amount of impact and help that Wikipedia has provided to many people all across the world. After doing some more research on the topic, I would like to explain my actions and how I am going to amend them in the future, to be able to be part of the community in a non-disruptive way. Bearing in mind I did not have knowledge on Wikipedia and how it worked, I have now learned that it appears I can be considered to be related to a conflict of interest with the article I edited: Cian O'Connor. I now understand that my conflict of interest violates Wikipedia's policies. To make this right, if I am allowed to, I would like to declare having a conflict of interest and work to fix the issues that this has generated to the pages I have contributed to. Some of the edits I have done on this page did not a neutral point of view and does not adhere to the 'biographies of a living person policy' and therefore should not be on the page. I would like to amend that, and to state that from now on I will put forward edit requests so that the eligible editors can review and edit my content if deemed relevant. The following topic relevant for me to explain myself, is the fact I was constantly trying to upload pictures. I believed that since they were of my own source, I wouldn’t be subjected to copyright violations. I have now learned that all images uploaded to wikipedia must have one of the accepted licensing such as cc-by or cc-by-sa. I will not make this mistake again and I am fully committed to following the guidelines now that I am aware of them. I have researched images that comply with the licensing and I can suggest those to be used instead, or I would like to have the chance to speak to an expert about uploading my own sourced images in the correct way. One of the biggest mistakes I made was to create a second account after my first block. I now understand this is a very disrespectful thing to do. I would like to mention I created the second account using my same name, with my work email address. I was not trying to have another identity, but only have access to the page to be able to edit my mistakes which I had already identified. However, I know that is no excuse and I would like to apologise for that. Another topic to address, is the fact that I deleted the tags given to my post. I believed these were tags shown only for my account, not in a public way. I deleted them constantly, thinking that those were my warnings. I apologise very much for doing so, I would like to express that my mistakes are completely innocent, I did not mean to be disrespectful or be disruptive. I had simply not done enough research. Additionally, I did not check my notifications during the time I was editing. That lead me to not seeing or answering any of the complaints and warnings posted to my page. I would never intentionally ignore warnings, in any case. I unfortunately did not know to check them. I now check my inbox on a daily basis, and I have replied to all the warnings immediately, before my global block, as soon as I had realised my mistake. I have learned that what I've done is wrong. I have done research and I have learned how to make meaningful contributions abiding by the policies. I strongly believe I can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia and it's community. I would love a second chance and to work together with other editors, to be able to provide truthful and interesting edits to the pages related to the equestrian industry. I would really appreciate the consideration of being unblocked, as well as the chance to talk to editors, perhaps through email, so I can communicate with them and be sure that I do not make any mistakes again, if I am granted with a second chance to be a wikipedia editor. Thank you very much for your time, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thanks again, all the best. AliaAliawalsh22 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Hi, Alia. You are probably lucky that I was the one who blocked you, because I think most administrators would not have unblocked you on the basis of that unblock request, for several reasons. However, as far as I am concerned, you have indicated that you will not continue to do the things which led to the block, and I am happy to give you a chance to prove that you can put that undertaking into action. I hope you will now be able to contribute constructively, without similar problems occurring again.JBW (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Please supply a TL;DR summary. I found this unduly long. With brevity please acknowledge what you did that got you blocked.

The English Language WIkipedia (this place), nor its admins (I am not one), is not concerned with any file uploads to Wikimedia Commons. It is an entirey separate site with entirely separate rules. Please confine yourself (with brevity) to what you did here.

I see you as a potentially useful editor here. The key word is potentially. I do find it somewhat disingenuous that you failed to notice talk page messages (etc) intended for you, the more so since they directkyt hampered your edits. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliawalsh22 which suggests that you have, once again, created a new username in order to circumvent a block. That username is already blocked on Commons, stated by Commons admins to be a sock puppet of this, your original username.

Your comments are invited at the Sockpuppet Investigation.

The reason I'm disappointed is that, if this investigation leads to a further block, I value your expertise in your area of interest and feel Wikipedia would be poorer lackikng that expertise.

If proven by our very capable technical team of checkusers, this is will result in an indefinite block, potentially reinstatement of the global lock (0.9 probability), and no way back (0.95 probability). Please think very carefully about any response you wish to make, and respond at the sockpuppet investigation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the absolute final try to get you to engage. I no longer care either way whether you edit here or not, but you made huge effort to get unblocked. I see an indefinite block rolling towards you (0.99 probability) and one that you are unlikely to be able to get lifted (0.95 probability) based upon your prior and current behaviour.

While this is obviously not real life and is just a website, albeit a reasonably important one, you have been absolutely determined to place material here. Now you appear to be striving to be prevented from doing so.

It is almost too late for you to influence the outcome, but there is a small chance that you will be able to. Please respond at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliawalsh22 as a matter of urgency 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliawalsh22. 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 ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aliawalsh22. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Max Wachman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aliawalsh22. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Max Wachman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]