User talk:Torchpawn

Hello Torchpawn. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Torchpawn. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Torchpawn|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No COI, and/or paid edits. How exactly does creating an article gives you the impression that it is COI? Torchpawn (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see obvious evidence of COI myself, but you should try to get a better handle on what constitutes a reliable source. When you use a lot of unreliable ones like at Draft:Charles & Alyssa Forever, where the duo or their agents may have paid or otherwise striven to get them discussed on a lot of junk bio sites, it's problematic at any rate. Please find more mainstream sources, if you can. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 06:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the mature guidance. Torchpawn (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. How about following the guidance. You basically reinstated the article with mostly the same junk bio sites as citations. There is not enough reliable sources with in-depth coverage (WP:SIGCOV) to demonstrate notability at this point. If you or another editor doesn't rectify this soon, the article will almost certainly be taken to WP:AFD. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 08:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay Stefan. Now I understand that even though I removed some of the “junk bio sites”, doing only that wasn’t enough. I will do my research and add more cites that show in depth coverage. Torchpawn (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Note my recommendation at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Charles_&_Alyssa_Forever_-_LLM_slop_sources?, where you've not responded, for a block or ban. Please consider responding there. --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles & Alyssa Forever 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/Charles & Alyssa Forever 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.

Hipal (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Ameerah1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

MER-C 11:25, 25 December 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

How am I a sock when this is my first and only account?

With all due respect, your investigation was trash and phony because if you actually carried out any legitimate investigation, there is no way in hell you will land at the very wrong conclusion that I am sock. Carry out a proper investigation and stop using your bias and prejudice to judge people. Torchpawn (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not sure that attacking and insulting the people (individually or collectively) that you rely on to be unblocked is such a clever idea, but you do you, I suppose. Be that as it may, you'll need to work a bit harder to persuade anyone to unblock you than merely saying you're innocent, because I for one am yet to meet a sockpuppet that didn't say that. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2025 (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.

Torchpawn (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) How does declining my request prove that you people are not a bunch of power-hungry yet mediocre administrators? I don’t care whether you decline or not, don’t just walk around Wikipedia with an air of superiority when you have no decency or morality. Torchpawn (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep at it, and you'll be blocked from this page as well.

And don't ping me unless you have something constructive or otherwise useful to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) how does me getting blocked remotely affect my life? I will simply log out.

My issue is, how can a person be so incompetent that they spend 20 years here and can’t even carry out a simple sock investigation. That is retarded level of incompetence. Torchpawn (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)