User talk:Residance

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Residance! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Nahida haii 15:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahida Appreciate that. Thanks! Residance (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Inhalant, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DFD

What you added to the singer seems a detail not worthy to mention in the lead. Perhaps find a place elsewhere in the biography. The Gurdian reference is already used in the article, and you could simply call it by name. Please ask here if you have questions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Israelis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Margalit. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is “maxim” not English?

Doug Weller talk 15:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas avoid using the word “claimed”

See MOS:CLAIM. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ariel University, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Gilabrand per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 01:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from working

I got a notice from you that I can't edit anymore. Could you please explain what happened? I haven't had an interaction with you as far as I know, and believe I have made many helpful additions in editing on this site, particularly in rewriting the English and making articles easier to understand. It is something I have enjoyed doing and I am honestly surprised and saddened by this. How did this happen and what can I do about it? Residance (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, a recent sockpuppet investigation concluded that your current account (Residance) has been operated by the same individual who operated the Herniac (talk · contribs) account, which had previously been blocked as a sockpuppet of Gilabrand (talk · contribs). As a result, I have blocked your current account as a sockpuppet of Gilabrand, because your activity on your current account constitutes block evasion and ban evasion. If you would like to appeal your block, you would need to do so from your original account, Gilabrand. (If you no longer have access to the Gilabrand account, please say so.) — Newslinger talk 11:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger But I don't have any original account. This is the original. I have been

here since November 2024, and I have not been in touch with anyone else. On what basis was this connection assumed? Residance (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral similarities between the Residance and Herniac accounts are quite obvious, in my opinion. As asilvering stated in the 8 February 2026 SPI case, your current account (Residance) "Picks up where the previous sock [Herniac] left off on March 9. Timecards, editing style, etc match." If you wish to appeal this decision, you can request an unblock from your current account and another administrator will review the case. — Newslinger talk 11:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger These are assumptions that seem a bit odd to me. I have never checked anybody's timecard, but there are millions of people in the world who are awake and do their editing at the same time. My editing style? I am part of the copyeditors project and the style is to achieve a properly written article that follows Wikipedia style. If there is something wrong with that style, please let me know and I will try to do better. Sincerely yours, Residance. Residance (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here, "editing style" does not refer to whether your edits comply with the Manual of Style; it refers to the similarities between the edits made by the Residance and the Herniac accounts, which are immediately obvious. Because edit histories are immutable, it is unlikely that any rebuttal you make here would convince me to rescind the block. However, you are welcome to request an unblock on this page if you would like an opinion from another administrator. — Newslinger talk 12:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger You mean when you started editing Wikipedia you didn't look at the way others edit and learn your way around? After I registered it took me a while to browse around and figure out what to do. I copied what seemed like the right thing from others. Are you are saying it's not allowed? The platform of Wikipedia offers these kinds of summaries. "Added short description," "improving the English." Fixed this or that. Are you saying this is specific to one Wikipedia contributor?? Residance (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Variants of "improved the English" are not a default edit summary offered on any Wikipedia website or software; you created that edit summary yourself. You have two options. Your first option is to request a review of the SPI decision by submitting an unblock request on this page. Your second option is to submit an unblock request from your original account (Gilabrand) after waiting an appropriate amount of time, preferably after making constructive contributions to other Wikimedia projects. The standard offer mentions a duration of six months, but considering that you have been engaging in sockpuppetry since 2014, it is unlikely that you would be unblocked within a year. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger You didn't understand what I said. I didn't say I only used Wikipedia's potted summaries. I said I wrote summaries that I saw being used elsewhere as I learned over time. As I also said, I am not any other editor. I learned from other editors as Wikipedia expects you to. I believe I have done my best to "improve the English" and make Wikipedia more readable. My wish to keep going is sincere. All these technicalities you are suggesting are confusing. I have never encountered the names you are bringing up, and I believe that you, or whoever decided I am someone else, are mistaken. In any case, these are all assumptions. If you look at my editing more closely you will see that my intentions are good. To have a block on me "just because," is disheartening, to say the least, in these tumultuous times. Residance (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blocked for your use of "improved the English" edit summaries; you are blocked for sockpuppetry, with one of the pieces of behavioral evidence being your use of idiosyncratic edit summaries such as "improved the English" across multiple accounts. Your reply is unconvincing, so I will not be unblocking you. Your options have been explained in my previous comment. — Newslinger talk 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger Well, I am not a puppet. And I still don't really know what you mean by that. Bizarre terms that some smart aleck Wikipedian invented... Residance (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Residance, you're welcome to request unblock by the process that has already been described to you. You will get nowhere arguing with Newslinger about it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RETENTION Residance (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is posted high up on your page. Residance (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? And note that if you are not going to make an unblock request and just argue, we can remove access to this page. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Sorry if you understood this as arguing. I was just trying to figure out what to do and I saw this policy on the administrator's page which seems to indicate an interest in retaining editors. I apologize if this was wrong. I will study the policies on how to make a request. Residance (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but we don’t want to retain sockpuppets, Doug Weller talk 18:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

My editing name is Residance, not any of the others cited here. I understand the concerns of the project administrators that the quality of Wikipedia could be impacted by editors who are suspected of having ulterior motives in their editing. That is not the case here. As a retired English teacher and copyeditor, I adopted Wikipedia as my next project in life, one in which I could make good use of my skills. Looking back at my edits over the past couple of years, I think I have made some important contributions on a wide range of topics, introduced better English and added descriptive labels as suggested on Wikipedia's mobile platform. I am not linked to any other editors, but as I mentioned in my talk page, I developed a system of how to fill in the blank that appears before saving the edit after reading and studying how this was done by others over a few months, before taking the plunge myself...Could be that administrators have been on the project for so long they don't remember the trepidation that comes with pushing that save button when you first start out. As for editing at a time when others do, I'm not sure how that can be used as an assumption that I am those others. After doing some research since yesterday, I see that I have been matched up with someone who lives in the region that I do, and may share some interests, but is certainly not from the same country. So, in short, or maybe not so short, I am requesting that this block be removed. If there is something specific I can do or say to remedy the situation, please let me know.

Decline reason:

Since you have subsequently appealed via UTRS as advised, I'm declining this request as redundant. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2026 (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.

. Residance (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by someone who lives in the region that I do, and may share some interests, but is certainly not from the same country? -- asilvering (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I meant that the editor you believe I am connected to, from what I can discern, seems to be working in the same part of the world, which explains the time zone similarity. Also, because of this geographical proximity we might be interested in similar topics. But- and this is a big but - we are from different countries! Residance (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested to know the basis for this conclusion. -- asilvering (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Oh, I see now that I am as guilty as you are at jumping to conclusions...As I said, I looked at the talk page of my alleged match and saw many photos from a certain part of the world, as well as barnstars and praise. On that basis I reached an assumption. Of course photography is not really evidence of where a person is from and maybe he just visited, but geographically I know my own whereabouts. Residance (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely vague, so it's not really going to help anyone who is responding to this unblock request. They'll just have to take your word for it - which they probably won't, since you're blocked for sockpuppetry. If there's information you'd like to share that you think would be exonerating, but you're hesitant to write it publicly, you can appeal via WP:UTRS. Start your appeal by saying that you don't want to share the information in the appeal on-wiki or they'll just send you back here. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I tried to send a letter to UTRS as you suggested. I think I messed up filling out the form and tried again, but now am not certain that it went through because I got a message about spamming. What shall I do now? Residance (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. UTRS appeal #110945 for responding admins. For some reason it's not showing up in the list of open appeals, though. @AmandaNP, not sure if this is a bug with the new system? -- asilvering (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bug with new UTRS 3, I have pushed through that specific appeal for now. I have to manually push them through right now (and im doing so about once a day) as the automatic process is not doing what it is supposed to. I hope to have a solution this weekend, but this wont effect this appeal further. -- Amanda (she/her) 12:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP So I have not heard back. Is there something else I need to do? Residance (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal key you got at the start of the process would give you access to your appeal, and there has been responses. I maintain the system, but am not usually the one who decides the result. -- Amanda (she/her) 10:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding dumb...but where would that appeal key be? Residance (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In extremely large font on the page that appears after you submit the request. The request has been denied; the information you provided was not relevant. -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering It absolutely was! Residance (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not know where this page is or how to access it. Residance (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not. You presented a story about why your technical data might have been confused for someone else. The admin who blocked you did not have access to that kind of technical data in the first place. It was not relevant to your block. -- asilvering (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering But I don't understand. The block, from what I read, was based on assumptions with respect to the time of day of editing and local interests. The technical data you say is irrelevant is exactly the point. Residance (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I realize administrators are busy, but I would like someone else to examine this. Maybe it has to do with using a phone to edit. I can't seem to get a clear reply. Just a repeat of the same allegations and not seeing where the problem is being discussed, if at all. Residance (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If your request on UTRS was declined, there's no open matter, so it's unlikely there's any ongoing discussion about this issue. Whether or not you're telling the truth, your basic challenge is to provide an administrator with a convincing argument why the behavioral evidence is insufficient. There's no assumption "with respect to the time of day of editing and local interest," but conclusions based on that information. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs But nobody has sent me any response of the appeal being declined. You cannot conclude anything on the basis of that information. If so, then dozens of editors could fit the bill. Residance (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any conclusion; I'm just advising you what your options are at this point. It was noted above that "the request has been denied." Your best option at this point might be to edit at another Wikimedia project for six months, edits that would provide behavior evidence that is not consistent with a blocked editor, and then request a reconsideration under WP:OFFER. Anyways, I wish you good luck. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs Thanks for trying to help, but if my account is blocked how could I edit other projects??? Residance (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you're only blocked on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no response

Until today I have not heard back about the appeal with private information I sent. All I get is random responses from editors who are passing by. If necessary I can send further proof that I am an independent editor caught up in matters that are not related to me. The allegations against me are precisely that - allegations based on suspicions and assumptions, not proof, seemingly based on an underlying belief that people who edit Wikipedia must have some evil motivation. Sad. Please reconsider this block which is ultimately harming Wikipedia, in reputation and practice. Residance (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no open unblock request, so your page will basically only be checked by random people following the conversation. If your UTRS was finally declined, it's unlikely that an unblock request here will be any use. As I said a couple of weeks ago, your best option at this point, by far, is to edit at another Wikimedia project for six months. Without compelling evidence that you are not at all like the blocked editor -- and if there actually is any, I imagine you would have already presented it -- the only way you're going to convince editors is a body of good work elsewhere that looks inconsistent with Galamore's behavior. In any case, I wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs Again, I did not receive any response at all, negative or positive. Where is that discussion located? And what other wiki project could I participate in? When I go to this account it says blocked. Is there another project you could join that is possible when editing on a cell phone and I won't get the block notice? What kind of behavior is this Glamore accused of that I should not engage in? Thanks for your patience, Mr. Coffeecrumbs. So many questions and no one to ask. Residance (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any project other than this one, en.wiki. Eg Simple Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller So can you tell me what the difference is between the two? I had a look and didn't really see one? Residance (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you explain how to change from one project to another? Can't figure out how to do that. Residance (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just create an account there. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]