Jamesation

Welcome!

Hi Jamesation! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DanCherek (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kingdom of Sardinia into Draft:The Kindom of Piedmont-Sardinia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, at Draft:Imn Nassional ëd Piemont, with text copied from Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia and Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia without the required attribution. Please provide this attribution, as explained above, each and every time you copy text from one Wikipedia article to another. DanCherek (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Imn Nassional ëd Piemont (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was: 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:Imn Nassional ëd Piemont and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Curbon7 (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jamesation! 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! Curbon7 (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you've had others speak about their deleted pages, and I want to say, why I made the Page

The article named: Kindom of Sardinia

was a disappointment for me personally because, I myself am of Piedmontese descent and the "Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia" was the actual name of the Kingdom, that I am also very proud of, I'm 16 years old and I'm also trying to learn the language of Piemontèis from a man called Simon from Turin because he is the youngest known native speaker of the Torinese Dialect.

What I thought was that, the article "Kindom of Sardinia" had more favouritism towards Sardinia and not as much as Piedmont and I wanted to change it but the edits were removed so, that's why I created my own, I did copy most of what was said from the original page but I did add more to it and reworded most of what was said, I hope that I didn't cause trouble but I would like to get any page that refers to the "Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia" get reworded edits as not the "Kingdom of Sardinia" but to the "Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia" because the Kingdom was ruled mostly by the Piedmontese, the Duchy of Savoy. I hope appreciate it a lot. Jamesation (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like what you want to do is to rename the article currently titled "Kingdom of Sardinia" to "Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia". That's a valid point of view (I don't know too much about the topic so I don't have an opinion myself), but I think the best approach for attempting this would be to read past discussions at Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia to see what has been discussed in the past and how people feel about it, and then, if you are still inclined, to start a move proposal by following the steps at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. DanCherek (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have checked it out and one person was mainly talking about Sardinia & Corsica, I think I would still like to get a renaming on Piedmont-Sardinia, and even by adding the old Piedmontese National Anthem "Imn nassional ëd Piemont" as well, thank you for your reply. Jamesation (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Kindom of Piedmont-Sardinia (July 25)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Curbon7 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: I'm going to opt to reject this outright so that you don't waste any of your time. If you wish to improve this topic area, do so at Kingdom of Sardinia.

Curbon7 (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"Piedmont-Sardinia"

Please stop hopping to articles and changing "King of Sardinia" to "King of Piedmont-Sardinia." In addition to said title not leading to any article, it has very little precedent. Almost no scholarly sources or online websites use this title. "King of Sardinia" is undeniably the most common, if not the only title accorded to said kingdom's monarchs. I am aware that the proposed title is of personal significance to you, but from a purely statistical and scholarly point of view, there is little benefit in renaming "Sardinia" to "Piedmont-Sardinia" in what could possibly be thousands of Wikipedia articles. Feel free to press the issue with me or other users, but please stop making changes like this to articles without prior discussion and consensus. Thanks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Imn Nassional ëd Piemont

Hello, Jamesation. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Imn Nassional ëd Piemont, 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) 15:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Imn Nassional ëd Piemont

Hello, Jamesation. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Imn Nassional ëd Piemont".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Refounding of the CWI

You state: " the CWI was not refounded". That contradicts this source on the Socialist Party (England and Wales) website: "Committee for a Workers’ International refounded with determination and confidence at historic conference" Note this paragraph: "The refounded CWI was constituted on the basis of the political and organisational principles adopted by the first four congresses of the Third International, the founding documents of the Fourth International in 1938 and the congresses of the CWI." This is an official statement published by the Socialist Party (England and Wales) (emphasis added). Similarly, there is this article on socialistworld.net which is the official website of the CWI: "Refounding the Committee for a Workers’ International on the basis of a Trotskyist programme and method " (emphasis added) which states "At an historic meeting held in London between July 22nd and 25th over 200 delegates and visitors to an international conference of the International Faction, ‘In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI’ took the decision to refound the Committee for a Workers’ International" (emphasis added). You also claim "the ISA do not claim to be the continuation of the CWI," - this is untrue. See, for example, 50 Years Since the Founding of the CWI (Now ISA) which states "50 years ago, in April 1974, a small group of people came together to establish the Committee for a Workers International, now International Socialist Alternative" - clearly the group does "claim to be a continuation of the CWI". Wellington Bay (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay I can admit that's what it was refounded on then but we no longer in that crisis and our split was nearly a decade ago, stop attacking us to this day. As the main committee of the CWI has stated as of this year that it is the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the International. Both Internationals have completely moved on, that being petty and trying to spread misinformation please. I have for the last few days been updating the images and a few weeks ago added the sections in with a different account I may say. Please leave it go, we are not the ISA. Jamesation (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "attacking" you and I'm not a member of a rival organisation. I'm actually adding neutrally worded, factual information that is relevant. The fact that you now find it inconvenient that your organisation said it was "refounding the CWI" is not relevant. Nor does this article belong to your organisation or have to reflect the organisation's preferred version of its own history. You have asserted several times now that you are a member of the CWI. Please review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy at WP:COI. You should not be editing the article, actually. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My main question is why do you think, you should edit out vital information that others certainly when researching will need as in the updated and edited sources? Jamesation (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You removed "vital information" in the infobox about the founder of the CWI (2019) being the "In Defence of a Working Class and Trotskyist CWI (IDWCTCWI) faction". The source for this is the CWI itself: "At an historic meeting held in London between July 22nd and 25th over 200 delegates and visitors to an international conference of the International Faction, ‘In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI’ took the decision to refound the Committee for a Workers’ International" "Refounding the Committee for a Workers' International on the basis of a Trotskyist programme and method". SocialistWorld.net. Committee for a Workers' International. July 25, 2019. Retrieved August 13, 2024.. If a meeting of the "In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI" faction "refounded" the CWI then that faction is the founder of the CWI (2019). Please do not remove sourced information and please stop editing the article as you are clearly in a conflict of interest. There are two separate articles, Committee for a Workers' International (1974) and Committee for a Workers' International (2019) for a reason. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The name and information is displayed in the history section, it's not like it was official a complete separate entity, we were still called the CWI and we are the CWI right now, putting the abbreviation "(IDWCTCWI) faction" is unnecessary for the quick info box.

If people are interest in reading further then, they can simply read about in the sub-section "Split".

I don't believe that it is your true intention to why you still removed far more resources that is being displayed. I can see that you're in Canada and possibly if I'm correct in the Canadian section of the ISA, and I do not know if you were in London between the days of the July 22nd and July 25th. What I can say is that more the simple reason why I edited the page was because I was adding vital information for viewers and members of the CWI already. Jamesation (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are claiming I removed "vital information" and "resources". Here's the diff.[1] Please state what "vital information" and "resources" I removed because, frankly, it's you who removed info and links, not me. As for my "true intention", it's to edit accurately and fairly. I am not a member of any organisation. You've already identified yourself as a member of this organisation so as I've said several times now, you're in a conflict of interest and should stop editing articles about your organisation. You seem to think the purpose of this wikipedia article is as a promotional device for your organisation, it's not, so please stop treating it as such. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I write about my organisation? I'm in it so I now what I'm saying additionally I wasn't the one to remove any useful information. The information I said that are vital are the emblems to the CWI, the map displaying the sections, and editing the other small parts of information on the page Jamesation (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamesation, as you are connected to the organisation you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. Please see the relevant policy here. Going forwards you need to formally declare the conflict of interest on your user page, as required in the policy, and should only be requesting changes to the article via Conflict of Interest Edit Requests (for which, once again, see the relevant policy). Axad12 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I was editing and updating sources on the page for the public to access them, I believe there are members from the ISA to try and not the CWI look bad, the information they are editing out is important to know when anybody researches the organisation, plus they removed an image of the different sections the organisation has. The newest version of the article was completely vandalised, why am I the target towards the page when people who clearly have a negative opinion are changing the complete version to suit the interests of their own possibly. Jamesation (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason you have encountered issues here is because you have continually been in breach of Wikipedia policies. People who do that get blocked. Even if your claims in relation to a rival group are correct, that would not justify the continual edit warring, copyright violation, editing in breach of conflict of interest policy, casting aspersions against other editors, etc. etc. that you have been engaging in. Axad12 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Revolutionary Socialism (Chile) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Revolutionary Socialism (Chile) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Socialism (Chile) 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.

Wellington Bay (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about your conduct

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation at League for the Fifth International

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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Trotskyist Opposition

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on International Trotskyist Opposition requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://ito-oti.org/ito-lfi-declaration-2024-02-08/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of International Trotskyist Opposition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Trotskyist Opposition 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Trotskyist Opposition (2nd nomination) 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.

Ahri Boy (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Please do not remove the {{copyvio/core}} template from articles, as you did with League for the Fifth International. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:League for the Fifth International/Temp. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators and/or removers of the copyright notice templates will be blocked from editing. Untamed1910 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for disruptive editing, COI, copyright violations/plagiarism.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it's clear you're not interested in participating in a communal project, and now you're throwing around personal attacks and accusing those who disagree with you of belonging to other organizations, it's clear you're not going to work out here. I've increase the block to cover all of the encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.

I was blocked for "vandalism" for 2 articles about a Trotskyist International. I know that many will not know about the Committee for a Workers' International also known as the CWI. There was information that needed to be added and there were two users that reported me and I believe that I was wrongly reported because I don't believe they understood what I edited, they tried and tried again reverting back to the incomplete version. The administrator blocked me immediately, and I don't think that they looked into my argument. If someone looked back at the most recent version and see my past versions, someone would see that they removed a lot of vital information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesation (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't care how "vital" you think the information is. You cannot just copy-paste text from somewhere else into Wikipedia, that is a copyright violation and illegal. Until you understand that, and our reliable sources policy, you will remain blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What parts of the article did I apparently "copy and paste", they removed the parts of the quick information area and also changed information that isn't true, they keep claiming that the the ISA, an international that is no longer part of the CWI claim to be the CWI, that is literally the truth. Jamesation (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They also removed quick important infomation before in the table, where they removed existing sections of the CWI, could someone please explain why that not vital information that people need when researching about the organisation? Jamesation (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You really should read and show you understand Wikipedia policies before making an appeal, particularly policies on conflict of interest WP:COI, neutrality WP:NPOV, no original research WP:NOR, reliable sources WP:RS, verifiability WP:V, and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Simply insisting that you are right and everyone else just doesn't understand will not convince anyone that you can be a productive editor. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

But why then are you adding information that aren't true and delete parts of the article are backed up, why remove parts of the article which display the sections of the CWI and its predecessor, and this goes for both articles about the CWI, the first one about the CWI before the large split and the second about its continuation? Jamesation (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't added anything that isn't true. For instance you insisted that the CWI hadn't been "refounded" until I showed you your own organisation's quotes stating that it had. Saying the current CWI views itself as a continuation of the original (and that another organisation makes the same claim) may not be your preferred way of stating your history but it is valid. I also haven't deleted anything - except for material you copied and pasted from off-wiki articles since that's a serious violation of our copyright policy - though even then I generally tagged the material as a copyviolation for other editors to deal with. As for other material that was removed, that was another editor who is insisting on enforcing Wikipedia's policies about using neutral sources that are *not* connected with your organisation rather than self-published sources. If you are going to argue do yourself a favour and actually research Wikipedia's policies first. Links to them have been posted on this page repeatedly but you don't seem to have bothered reading them. No lawyer would step into a courtroom without first reading the law. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I will admit to the misunderstanding when I removed the "refounded" part, but yes you have delete important information, the part stating that the ISA claim to be the continuation is simply not true anymore as of their founding in February 2020. People have access to the section under "History" where they can find "Split", before I was blocked, you constantly kept deleting the map and banner of the CWI that is still deleted from when I added it, plus the area at the bottom that show the sections of the CWI were also vandalised. You have clearly shown that you do not know what you are removing and adding, the CWI is no longer classified as the (IDWCTCWI faction), it was, only around the time of the split but it has been 5 years since the split and by only showing that as practically the only information updated on the article, you are rejecting people from knowing more about the CWI. I would like to ask for my account to be unblocked and have both of the articles updated to the version that conducts the most recent information that it requires. You along with several other users have actually held back the ability of people to view the page to its correct form, it's not right, it is awful. Jamesation (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no "vandalism", all edits were following Wikipedia's core policies. Just endlessly demonstrating that you're only here to instead misuse this site as a promotional tool isn't going to get you unblocked. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That is just untrue, again why didn't Amy of you just read the external articles, you would have seen that they were necessary? Jamesation (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable third-party sources to support material that is added. Simply using the CWI website as a source about the CWI is completely inappropriate and instead just highlights the fact no one cares about the CWI but the CWI and therefore isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia in the first place. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I will take your advise about looking at Wikipedia's policies but as I have said before, you are restricting access to true vital information that shows the most recent data. Jamesation (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The map is still there but we don't put two versions of a logo in infoboxes. Look around and you'll see. Wikipedia pages are not promotional material. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you for finally explain instead of simply getting me banned instead of answering/editing the page nicely Jamesation (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay didn't get you banned. You were blocked from main space because they highlighted your inappropriate behaviour to admins (namely editing pages for organisations you're in and committing blatant copyright violations). You were then fully blocked for accusing anyone who didn't nod along to your inappropriate behaviour as being part of a sinister cabal of wrong-think Trots. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologise about any articles from external sources I have not probably referenced correctly, but all you and other members did, were remove them without viewing them and maybe you would have seen that, they are up to date information and why any of you didn't just amend them by adding the references or original 3rd party paragraphs written instead of deciding to just remove them? Jamesation (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place for a continuation of the content dispute. If you want to make an unblock request, do so. Otherwise drop the stick. Axad12 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamesation (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)