User talk:JohnMendal

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).

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

Request reason:

When I don't know the user thamesinfotech even don't have any relation I am not connected Or don't have any connection with them how can i explain it? JohnMendal (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is incoherent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JohnMendal, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi JohnMendal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Blaze The Wolf (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Press Walla (July 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Press Walla and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Press Walla, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Thamesinfotech per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thamesinfotech. 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 ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I don't didnajy wrong things here how you can say that I am sock puppet? JohnMendal (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, supported with technical evidence, so sockpuppetry is not in doubt. If you are not a sock, you will need to give a plausible explanation as to why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

When I don't know the user even don't have any relation I am not connected Or don't have any connection with them how can i explain it? JohnMendal (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]