User talk:Wimopul

June 2022
Hello, I'm CX Zoom. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to BBC Bitesize have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: NotNill News (September 19)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

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:NotNill News 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:NotNill_News Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:NotNill_News reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dual carriageway. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Also at Matt Walsh (political commentator. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 noticeboards.
 * 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.


 * The edit was constructive. Bassem Masour is an incorrect spelling. The name is spelt: Bassem Mansour Wimopul (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite a source for this? The Wall Street Journal could be wrong, however at present the source does state that the head of the Syrian Civil Aviation Authority is Bassem Masour, and I cannot easily find any other sources that dispute this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:NotNill News
Hello, Wimopul. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NotNill News, 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&#32;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) 18:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dylan Mulvaney. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 noticeboards.
 * 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 do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with The General Reference. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Miner Editor (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at The Baby Club. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not even a spam link man Wimopul (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Amala Ekpunobi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amala Ekpunobi 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 Articles for deletion/Amala Ekpunobi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:NotNill News


Hello, Wimopul. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "NotNill News".

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! 18:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The General Reference


The article The General Reference has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable website."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. ... disco spinster   talk  23:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of The General Reference for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The General Reference 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 Articles for deletion/The General Reference until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. ... disco spinster   talk  12:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. 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:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * , unblock requests are not for just asking questions. If you have questions, ask them normally; use  to notify me about a message.
 * Before I answer your question, I think I should ask a counter-question: What is your connection to thegeneralreference.org? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have contributed to an article about it and I have cited it, I thought it was reliable but apparently not. I didn't know that was a sanctionable offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimopul (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that's only what you did on Wikipedia. I can see what you did on Wikipedia, so no worries about that. My question was meant differently: You have a strong focus on editing about thegeneralreference.org, but noone else has ever cited it on Wikipedia. This leads to the impression that you own this website or are closely affiliated with it. You'll need to explain this, and I have a feeling that the explanation already answers the question "How are my contributions inappropriate?". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry for the misunderstanding. I would like to clarify that while I do not have a stake in The General Reference, it was used heavily at my previous organization as a resource for information. As a result, I may have been biased in my edits on Wikipedia and cited the website more frequently than is appropriate. I have since read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding conflicts of interest, I fully understand why my actions were inappropriate. I apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused and I am committed to abiding by the policies moving forward. If there are any edits that you believe may be inappropriate, I am more than happy to remove them.
 * Out of interest, (excuse me if this is a basic question) but I'm curious about how you're able to view previous edits made by users on Wikipedia. I've tried to do it in the past, but I wasn't able to work it out. Wimopul (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Emoji_u1f610.svg
 * There are contributions such as, and  that don't seem to be obviously explainable purely by personally being used to a specific source, as there was no request and no other need for a citation in these situations. And while the creation of an article (The General Reference) about a source you're enthusiastic about is somehow understandable, the dedication put into spamming this source into as many articles as possible is hard to comprehend without explanations that go beyond yours.
 * Anyway, if you request an unblock, please make sure that your request contains the following:
 * A description of what led to the block, and why we can be sure that it won't happen again
 * (optional) An agreement, as a binding unblock condition, not to link to thegeneralreference.org again
 * Examples for helpful contributions that are currently prevented by the block. If there is something you'd like to do on Wikipedia, please describe what that is. Which article(s), which changes?
 * There is no time limit for an unblock request, so if you are currently not interested in contributing to Wikipedia in ways unrelated to thegeneralreference.org, please don't make a request yet. You can do so even years later if this ever changes. Take your time.
 * The page Special:Contributions provides a list of a user's contributions; user names are case sensitive. The list of tools linked at the top right of users' talk pages (such as yours here) contains a link to the "User contributions" too.
 * The Task Center and the community portal contain ideas for helpful contributions.
 * Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wimopul, would you be willing to agree to an unblock condition that prevented you from either writing about thegeneralreference (as an article, or a paragraph about it an another article etc) or using it as a source? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering a potential unblock condition for me. I appreciate your efforts to find a resolution. I am willing to agree to the proposed condition that prevents me from writing about the general reference, whether as an article or including a paragraph about it in another article. Additionally, I am willing to abstain from using it as a source.
 * However, I would appreciate some clarification regarding the scope and duration of this condition. Could you please provide more details on how long this condition would remain in effect? Additionally, it would be helpful to understand if there are any specific exceptions or allowances related to the general reference that I should be aware of.
 * If there are any further details or terms you would like to discuss regarding this condition, please let me know.
 * Thank you once again for your consideration. Wimopul (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wimopul - of course. I would anticipate using the standard rules for a conditional unblock appeal. That is, you can appeal every 6 months, to me or to the community (or both - in the sense, that if I turn you down, you can then appeal to the community at WP:AN but not vice-versa).
 * The normal exemptions listed at ban exemptions apply, but that is unlikely to really be applicable - this restriction wouldn't prevent you from talking about TGR. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Before progressing I would also want to raise the issue of your communication, or lack thereof. You received numerous warnings above and made very few efforts to communicate - which ultimately resulted in your block. If you were unblocked, you'd be on much thinner ice, especially for the first year. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my lack of communication and the resulting inconvenience it may have caused. I understand that my failure to engage effectively has led to my block, and I take full responsibility for my actions. I assure you that I am committed to rectifying this situation and improving my communication efforts moving forward. If given the opportunity to be unblocked, I assure you that I will prioritize effective and timely communication. I am willing to take any necessary steps to improve my communication skills and demonstrate my commitment to fulfilling my responsibilities. Please let me know if there are any specific actions or measures you would like me to take in order to address this issue and improve my communication. I am open to any suggestions or guidance you may have, and I genuinely appreciate your understanding and consideration. Could you please clarify the specific actions or requirements that I need to fulfill in order to be unblocked?
 * Thank you for your kind assistance. Wimopul (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need to make a new formal update - an additional comment will suffice Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree - thoughts on a ROPE unblock with the conditional restrictions above? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mixed.
 * The longer I read the conversation above, the more I get the impression ChatGPT was involved somehow. "I am willing to take any necessary steps to improve my communication skills and demonstrate my commitment to fulfilling my responsibilities"? What steps are you talking about, ? What is "effective and timely"? This is all suddenly weirdly Wikipedia-unspecific. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The steps was referring to taking steps to familiarise myself further with Wikipedia's guidelines; something i neglected to do previously. 'Effective and timely' communication was referring to nosebagbear's statement that i was not communicating well with the admins who warned me previously.
 * I'm intrigued that my language might be mistaken for that of an AI, but rest assured, I'm a human. Admittedly, I'm still getting the hang of the cadences typically used when talking on Wikipedia. It typically seems to be a bit less formal than I originally thought.
 * I appreciate and understand your consideration regarding the possibility of a conditional unblock. Moving forward, I'll make a conscious effort to ensure that my communication and contributions adhere to the conditions you have set out. Wimopul (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally am not buying it.
 * Your connection to thegeneralreference.org, "The General Reference" in some of your messages, "the general reference" in others, a blog with post dates that strangely correlate with the timing of your Wikipedia edits about the same topics, surely is closer than "it was used heavily at my previous organization". Again, you are the only person who has ever linked to it on any Wikimedia project.
 * You have previously written about ChatGPT, thegeneralreference.org seems to make use of AI-generated imagery and texts, and there is an article about ChatGPT there too. I have only seen this after I voiced my suspicion above, and I find it quite confirming.
 * From my personal side, there won't be an agreement for unblocking in response to what I personally perceive as dishonesty that persists even after it was pointed out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that you find my claims difficult to believe and (though I don't feel there is much I can say to convince you otherwise) would like to reiterate all of my interactions have been written personally, without the assistance of artificial intelligence.
 * I have contemplated our ongoing engagement and it's lack of progression leads me to believe that it is not fruitful to continue. If you ever have a change of heart about this matter, please do let me know.
 * As I value your time, and consider it better spent elsewhere, I think it best to take a step back from this discourse until further progress or understanding can be made. Wimopul (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)