User talk:Hurlow

Hi Hurlow! 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, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Infinitywiki2 (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Jim Schley leading a book discussion at Vermont Humanities.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note - as the uploader, you can request its deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the file description. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Whpq, Thanks for the guidance, I’ve done that now. Hurlow (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hurlow, thanks for your efforts to add {{Infobox settlement}}. When you add infoboxes, if there is already an image at the top of the article, it's best to either put it in the infobox or incorporate it into a later section of the text. Otherwise, the infobox gets awkwardly pushed below the image (or vice versa). See Special:Diff/1338072721 for how I incorporated an image into an infobox you added. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Pi.1415926535, Thanks a lot for the tip. I’ll keep your advice in mind and make sure to place images and infoboxes the right way from now on. Hurlow (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, can I ask why you are adding the Use MDY dates tag to articles which neither have strong national ties to MDY dates nor have any established use of MDY dates, such as this edit for Lemvig Museum, a museum in Denmark? The article also has no dates in it at all. Thanks AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

At Niklas Lindqvist the original creation of the article used DMY dates so by adding the MDY dates tag and changing to MDY you have violated WP:DATERET. AusLondonder (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AusLondonder, thanks for pointing that out. I was adding date‑format tags to articles that didn’t have any dates, especially where older edits had used MDY before 2012, so I was just trying to standardize things. I didn’t realize this would conflict with DATERET or that the article didn’t have an established format. Thanks for the reminder, I’ll keep that in mind and follow DATERET from now on. Hurlow (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No problem, just giving you a heads-up. The tag should only be added to articles that either use MDY dates from creation or have strong ties to a nation that uses MDY dates, mainly the United States. For example the article Erkki Paavolainen used DMY dates at creation, so should continue to do so. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@AusLondonder, Thanks for the clarification and for guiding me. I’ll follow your advice. Hurlow (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for your response. AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Hurlow, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Marian1962 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, just to clarify, I’m only using my own account and I’m not connected to Marian1962 or any other accounts. Hurlow (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Izno Hi, sorry to bother you, and thank you again for your time. I was reading the SPI discussion and noticed that you had placed my account in the inconclusive category regarding the other accounts. If possible, I would kindly like to ask whether you could take another look at my situation when you have a moment. I appreciate your help and fully understand if you are busy. Thank you. Hurlow (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 02:03, 21 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I joined Wikipedia only a month ago and was actively learning and improving.

My goal has always been to contribute in good faith, and this is my only account.

I was constantly studying policies and carefully following every warning I received.

This block seems to be a misunderstanding. Please review my account. Hurlow (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been linked to other accounts with private technical evidence(that even I cannot see); this doesn't necessarily mean that you were the operator of the other accounts. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 21 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the response. I understand that some technical evidence was mentioned, but I can confirm that I have only used this single account. Please also consider my contributions, which were all made in good faith. For example, I worked on a BLP article in the mainspace (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raivo_Palmaru&action=history ) that was a stub and expanded it into a start-class version. I have also made constructive edits in other areas, such as the geography article Hellange (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellange&action=history ) and the biography of physician Robert Cooke (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Cooke_(physician)&action=history ), both of which were stubs that I expanded with sourced content to start. I would appreciate review by another administrator, and I hope my opportunity to contribute constructively is not lost. Thank you. Hurlow (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I looked at the technical data, and it shows you logging out of one account and logging into the other two minutes later. This evidence outweighs your denial. PhilKnight (talk) 14:20, 21 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for taking the time to look at my request. I understand why the technical data might suggest a connection to other accounts, but I can honestly say I’ve only ever used this one account. I’ve been trying to learn and contribute in good faith, and I hope my edits show that. I would be grateful if another administrator could take a fresh look at my situation. Thank you. Hurlow (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I understand why the technical data might suggest a connection to other accounts" - you'll need to share that explanation in order to convince any checkuser to look at the evidence in a different light. Cabayi (talk) 12:12, 22 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your response. When I said I understood how it might look that way, I only meant that I wasn’t trying to argue with the concern that was raised by the administrators, and I respect their judgment. Honestly, this is the only account I’ve ever used, and I’ve simply been trying to learn and contribute. I’d be grateful if my good faith could be taken into consideration. Thank you.Hurlow (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are going to get absolutely nowhere by saying "this is the only account I've ever used" over and over again. No checkuser will believe you. If you really, truly, have only ever used this account, and you don't have any idea how you could be connected to any other person, please explain how you connect to Wikipedia (what type of internet connection, where, on what kinds of devices, etc). If you do not wish to disclose this publicly, you may appeal via WP:UTRS. Make sure you note that this is information you don't want to share publicly, so they don't just send you back to your talk page. asilvering (talk) 21:06, 24 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the guidance. I use Wikipedia on my personal laptop through my home internet connection and Chrome. Thank you again for taking the time to review my unblock request. Hurlow (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 11 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.

I've already declined so I'll leave this for someone else. But as a CU I'll say that it's time to revoke TPA. -- asilvering (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm in the same position as asilvering. This latest appeal yet again does not give a plausible explanation for the technical evidence. Pulling TPA may be the only way to stop this user cycling through every available checkuser 'til there's nobody left who's still able to consider an appeal. Cabayi (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems like that's already happened, or none of the other unblock checkusers wish to comment. Very well then. Talk page access revoked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)