Request reason(s):
All I did was put an article up for article demotion. I don't see how this warrants as either breaking of Wikipedia's rules or causing of disruption.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
See discussion below.

Pinging Djsasso. Vermont (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The block had nothing to do with putting up the article for demotion. It was for sock puppeting and matching other accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, "Sock puppetry is using more than one account to break Wikipedia rules or cause disruption." What I'm saying is, I don't see how article demotion is a disruption, and therefore don't see how my account got blocked. GeographyAholic (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It is the other accounts you were linked to that were disruptively editing, which makes your "new" account an attempt to evade the actions taken against those accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
According to section 1.2.3 of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, "If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply stop using the old account(s), and make an unconnected new account. This becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner." My actions do follow this rule. GeographyAholic (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as long as those accounts are not blocked. Otherwise its known as block evasion. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
My previous account wasn't blocked until after I made the new one. GeographyAholic (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There was more than one account you attached to. That being said I will remove the block for now, needless to say should you edit in a disruptive manner I will readd it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Northern AsiaEdit

The page you wrote, Northern Asia, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick deletion of North AsiaEdit

The page you wrote, North Asia, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Do not copy complex content from other websites, even the English Wikipedia, without ensuring you are legally able to use it, abiding by the license that the content was released under, and simplifying it. Over the past few days, you've been adding a lot of copied complex content to the article on the United States of America. I have removed it, as it is copied from the English Wikipedia without simplification or attribution. Your additions were disruptive; please do not do it again. Vermont (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see how these edits are disruptive. Granted, my edits may have been a little "complex," but the reversion of 10 kilobytes without warning feels uncalled for. I can get to work on simplifying the article further if you wish. jackchango talk 19:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Presidential Commission of UgandaEdit

I declined your QD request on this article. It may have been a copy/paste, but that is allowed if the text is simple enough. There was only one word I thought was complex, so I simplified it. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Protestant ReformationEdit

I believe it should remain at this title as there are many Reformations, and only one Protestant Reformation. The word protestant is not complex in the same way that "United States of America" or "Renaissance" isn't complex. It's the subject of the article and is not dependent on simplicity. Vermont (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: Whilst I agree the have been many reformations throughout history, this one is by far the most recognisable and is most often called simply The Reformation. It also matches enwiki in the name. jackchango talk 19:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that was the proper way to move a page, it has to be discussed first. Moving a page via copy and paste destroys the page history. Zaxxon0 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxxon0: My condolences, but the move function wouldn't work for whatever reason. I've moved plenty of other pages without retaliation before, but I'll be sure to be more respectful when it comes to page moves from here on in. I'm also fairly certain that page history pages can be merged by administrators if that's an issue. And is there any template we can use here to request the moving of an article? Apologies once more. jackchango talk 19:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Copy paste moves like that are a copyright violation so can't be done. I have undone the move as there are objections to it. Discuss on the talk page of the article if you wish to move it and an admin will move it properly if the result of the discussion is move. This comment is not a comment on whether or not it should be moved. -DJSasso (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Article sizeEdit

There is a difference between article size in bytes and too much detail. Being too big means you split out sections to new articles, it does not mean you just chop out key information in an article. The infobox on the other hand is set to be standard across all countries, we don't just stop filling it out to make the page shorter. The information found in infoboxes for any subject is the most important information about the subject, it is why we put it in infoboxes. You literally are removing the most important information in the article. Our United States article is already well below the good threshold for an article size. Removing valid content is disruptive. -Djsasso (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While I can see a potential case in removing things like the other traditional mottos (assuming they are sufficiently obscure), it is worth noting that consensus on EN wiki does not automatically carry forward to here. This change should be discussed on Talk:United States, but until then it would be good to follow the en:WP:BRD cycle. Chenzw  Talk  11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020Edit

  Thank you for changing Wikipedia. We welcome all changes, but we can have only changes that are in simple English, and your new changes to "United States" were not simple. Please see Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages so you can write more simply in the future. Thank you. IWI (chat) 04:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)