User talk:DP-Author

Hi, DP-Author, welcome to Wikipedia. We're glad you've decided to contribute to the encyclopedia. I've noticed that some of your edits are duplicating text (with some variation) already in the article, e.g., Special:Diff/1337626595. Is this the result of some oversight with an editing tool? Thanks, Einsof (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No DP-Author (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You continued to largely duplicate existing information in articles such as this, this and this. Please stop doing that. ~SG5536B 00:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Liga de Amadores Brasileiros de Rádio Emissão, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cicada1010. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bentley without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cicada1010 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Almost all your edit summaries simply say "Fixed Wikipedia edit". This is not helpful. Please use an edit summary that describes the change that you made. CodeTalker (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, as you did at Republic Day (India), you may be blocked from editing. "Fixed Wikipedia edit" is unacceptable, especially if you want to remove half of an article. LightlySeared (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2026 (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 Tamils, 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. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Sikhs. tony 17:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Bishonen: might be worth taking a look here. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I've rolled back a lot of edits and blocked the user indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 09:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC).

Hello, I noticed you've been adding newlines to articles - there are certainly cases where we will add space - a single newline between sections is expected. Per MOS:OVERSECTION (end of second paragraph), a new line is not needed after section headings. Performing repeated edits like this may be construed as an attempt to pad edit count and may be disruptive, so it's best avoided. Thanks! ASUKITE 18:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dholakpur (fictional kingdom), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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 in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@DP-Author, please take a look at the above information -- most importantly this part:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

--tony 17:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Bird Idol (animation). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. AlphaCore talk 22:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that my edits were disruptive, especially due to unclear edit summaries and removal of content without proper explanation. I apologise for this. I did not intend to disrupt Wikipedia. If unblocked, I will provide reliable sources, use clear edit summaries, and avoid large changes without discussion.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand that this block isn't just your account, it's you, personally, who have been blocked. You are expected to respect that and not evade your block, which is just another form of disruptive behavior. Therefore, I am not convinced that unblocking you will result in changed behavior that is beneficial to Wikipedia. You are free to make another appeal taking this feedback into account. Bear in mind that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. If you cannot be patient and wait, you may be better off spending your time away from Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Noting block evasion here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have common sense or not? If I hadn’t used TA how would I have even reached out to Admin? And secondly I only dropped a message at the Teahouse — I did not make any edit using TA. If you don’t have proper knowledge about Wikipedia processes, please don’t give suggestions. ~2026-11677-62 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You are currently in a list of people who have active unblock requests here. However, there is a backlog and admins are volunteers, so getting an unblock request reviewed can take a while. QwertyForest (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Sending it sometime DP-Author (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@DP-Author, evading your block won't help you. In fact, if you do it too often, your block could be converted from a block (that any admin can choose to lift) to a ban, which is harder to appeal as the community must agree. This is known as a three-strikes ban. QwertyForest (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not currently allowed to edit anywhere on English Wikipedia except this page, and there's no particular order in which unblock requests are addressed. For some requests, especially ones that aren't obvious declines or obvious accepts, it can be a few weeks or even more if there's a backlog. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

And after being told not to do this, you again evaded your block to post about your block at the Teahouse. . CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you previously edited with other user accounts? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure. Maybe you’re asking because I created some pages? I have been editing Wikipedia since 2022, but I was using a temporary account before. Now I have shifted to my new official account DP-Author (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

LOUTSOCK with User:~2026-12918-81. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that the block applies to me personally and that using another account while blocked is against policy. I apologise for any actions that gave the impression of block evasion. If unblocked, I will follow all policies strictly and will not edit from any alternate accounts. I request one chance to contribute constructively. DP-Author (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

You didn't simply give "the impression of block evasion", you deliberately committed block evasion. You really need to own up to the reasons why you are still blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that the block applies to me personally and that using another account while blocked is against policy. I apologise for any actions that gave the impression of block evasion. If unblocked, I will follow all policies strictly and will not edit from any alternate accounts. I request one chance to contribute constructively.

Decline reason:

One open appeal at a time, please. And don't use AI to generate them, or anything else for that matter. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

DP-Author (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I accept and sorry for that i violated the block by editing from another account/IP while blocked. I understand this was wrong and against policy. I take full responsibility for this mistake..I apologise for my disruptive editing, misleading edit summaries and failure to follow proper procedures despite multiple warnings. I now understand why the block was necessary. If given another opportunity I will strictly follow all policies will not evade blocks under any circumstances, and will discuss major changes before editing. I am willing to accept editing restrictions if required.

(I request one final chance to rebuild trust). DP-Author (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. You have not specified a subject area where you intend to edit, or described how you will ensure your edit summaries are adequate. Deb (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for disruptive edits unclear edit summaries and for checking my unblock request from this account and I miss used TA for the Teahouse help while I was blocked i realise now that this was considered block evasion and was against policy.

I apologise for these mistakes. If unblocked i will only edit from this account use clear edit summaries add reliable sources and discuss major changes before editing.

I plan to work mainly on film and entertainment articles and make constructive sourced edits...I request one chance to contribute properly.. DP-Author (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understand that I was blocked for disruptive edits unclear edit summaries and for checking my unblock request from this account and I miss used TA for the Teahouse help while I was blocked i realise now that this was considered block evasion and was against policy. I apologise for these mistakes. If unblocked i will only edit from this account use clear edit summaries add reliable sources and discuss major changes before editing. I plan to work mainly on film and entertainment articles and make constructive sourced edits...I request one chance to contribute properly.. [[User:DP-Author|DP-Author]] ([[User talk:DP-Author#top|talk]]) 13:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that I was blocked for disruptive edits unclear edit summaries and for checking my unblock request from this account and I miss used TA for the Teahouse help while I was blocked i realise now that this was considered block evasion and was against policy. I apologise for these mistakes. If unblocked i will only edit from this account use clear edit summaries add reliable sources and discuss major changes before editing. I plan to work mainly on film and entertainment articles and make constructive sourced edits...I request one chance to contribute properly.. [[User:DP-Author|DP-Author]] ([[User talk:DP-Author#top|talk]]) 13:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that I was blocked for disruptive edits unclear edit summaries and for checking my unblock request from this account and I miss used TA for the Teahouse help while I was blocked i realise now that this was considered block evasion and was against policy. I apologise for these mistakes. If unblocked i will only edit from this account use clear edit summaries add reliable sources and discuss major changes before editing. I plan to work mainly on film and entertainment articles and make constructive sourced edits...I request one chance to contribute properly.. [[User:DP-Author|DP-Author]] ([[User talk:DP-Author#top|talk]]) 13:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

DP-Author (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)