Hi Amily6! 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! Dajasj (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the templates to Dutch politicians :) Dajasj (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk:Nazi concentration camps, 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. Anti-Nazi Germans WERE the first victims of Nazi oppression. That's not whitewashing, it's historical fact. Your emphasis on Germans as always perpetrators, never victims borders on ethnic prejudice, which is not allowed on WP. (t · c) buIdhe 19:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Germans were perpetrators, few been victims, but not because of their "Germanness", but because lack of it. "Removing" Germans and replacing them with Nazis is whitewashing and negationism. Amily6 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Haydamak. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Timtjtim (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding 'German' to every instance of 'nazi' you come across, it is decidedly wp:disruptive—blindlynx 00:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not assert people have committed crimes unless they have been convicted of those crimes by a court of law. Merely being arrested and charged doesn't count. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 18:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Amily6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear, I am requesting an unblock. I was blocked without prior warning, and I believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding my talk edits. I did not intend to violate the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. In one of my comments, I expressed a personal opinion, and I now understand that such statements are not appropriate for Wikipedia, even on talk pages. I also suggested that other editors who read Dutch could consult the original sources and improve the article as they saw fit. My goal was to contribute constructively, not to cause disruption. Additionally, my block caused many of my productive, time-consuming edits—such as the templates for current Dutch Parliament members—to be reverted automatically, which I regret. I am committed to editing responsibly and following all Wikipedia policies going forward. I will avoid expressing personal opinions and will stick strictly to verifiable, neutral information. I kindly request that my block be reconsidered. Thank you. Amily6 (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

 Technically indistinguishable from the other blocked socks, operating from the same geographic area, editing the same articles. To be clear, the technical evidence is far more compelling than simply "being from the Netherlands as other user". Given that, I'm endorsing the block. Yamla (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, it looks like your block was due to technical evidence of you using more than one account to edit.

This is a "checkuser" block, which involves a full examination of different technical data to conclude that this is not your only account.

Have you ever edited Wikipedia before? Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Blue Sonnet, thank you for your reply.

This is my first time editing Wikipedia, and I have not used any other account.

Regarding my talk-page comment: I realize I became too emotional and added personal opinions, which I now understand is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I will not repeat that mistake. My intention was to contribute constructively, not to violate any policies.

I have only ever edited using this single account, and I would appreciate the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding.

I noticed you reverted all of my recent edits. All of those changes were intended to be productive and improve the article; the only issues that arose were in the discussion, not in the content itself. If you feel any specific edit was problematic, please point it out so we can address it directly rather than reverting everything wholesale.

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amily6 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi again, several AI detectors give a 100% likelihood that this was written by AI and not by you. I could not get a result lower than 100%.

In the interests of fairness, I'll presume you might have written this yourself and point out that I did not revert a single one of your edits - almost every editor who did revert your edit gave you a clear explanation in the edit summary.

Please don't use AI to write your posts. Please also remember to sign your posts with four tildes (these: ~ ) AI doesn't know how to do that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

For AI part: Im honestly not sure what to say. I didn’t use any AI to write my messages. If I did, I suppose it would have told me about the tilde signature, because I genuinely did not know that. I’ll use it from now on. Thanks.

The block: first it was BLP, then the reverts, and now the AI suspicion. From my side it feels like a misunderstanding that keeps growing, and I’m trying to clear it up but also remind me Give me the man and I will give you the case against him (already sorry for that).

Reverts: you were the one whose edits ended up removing Template:Members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2025–present from all 150 members of the Dutch Parliament, together with other edits I had carefully made. We just had elections in NL, and the Template:Members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2023–present became Template:Members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2023–2025 , so I added also the new 2025 template. It took a lot of time to update all those entries, so seeing it all rolled back was really discouraging.

Reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larissa_Zaleska_Onyshkevych&diff=next&oldid=1323042817 in 1935 Stryi was in Second Polish Republic, not in created in 1991 Ukraine, nor Ukrainian SSR. Exactly the same here with Lviv here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wsevolod_W._Isajiw&diff=next&oldid=1323043186

Another https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASejm_Marshals_of_the_Third_Polish_Republic&diff=1326201173&oldid=1323046529 he is the Marshall from 18 November.

These were factual corrections based on dates and historical context. Have linked three first consecutive examples here, but there are more if needed. I’m not listing them to argue only to explain that my edits were made in good faith and based on sourcing.

As for the “problematic topic” of Killing of Lisa from Abcoude I was restoring sourced information of "22-year-old illegal migrant from Nigeria" that had been now FULLY removed. I wasn’t trying to push an opinion. I was following what the sources said and avoid whitewashing that it's clearly now happening.

And in the any other revert article where paramilitary peasants bandits been called without sources a soldiers: another editor and I discussed it, and after reviewing the sources, he agreed with the correction and even apologized for the oversight. So again, I was trying to contribute constructively. "Fair enough, change it back :) sorry for not looking more closely" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtjtim#haidamaks

I know I got too emotional (maybe vulva solidarity and too close to me also geographicaly) in just ONE talk-page comment and that part is on me. That was my mistake, and I won’t repeat it. But the rest of my edits were made in good faith, with sources, and without any intent to violate policy.

I hope this helps clarify what I was doing and why. I would appreciate if the block could be removed. Amily6 (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying about the AI, I'm glad to hear that you're not using it.

Can you please provide diffs of me editing that template because I have no memory of doing so and can't see myself in the edit history at all? All the links you've given were reverted by @Girth Summit, not myself.

Girth Summit didn't touch the first template at all.

I won't be able to go into the reverts in detail because I didn't make them and they're not currently related to your block - unblocked editors can discuss edits and reversions, but blocked editors should only be discussing matters directly related to their block. This matter can be revisited if you're successfully unblocked.

Looking at your Block Log, there is only one block and one reason for blocking - a "checkuser" block.

These are blocks following a technical investigation into the misuse of multiple accounts.

Only admins with checkuser access can see the the evidence and decide whether your appeal is credible, so if you do have anything to add or ant other information you feel might explain the results they found, you can add that below. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ohh sorry, my absolute bad: I mixed Summit/Sonnet, Blue/Gray (actually Girth). They rollback all of my edits. Please try to go through my contribution and find any problematic. The only discussion was about calling peasants bandits a soldiers where I was apologized. And there a brutally murdered of 17 yo in Amsterdam by "illegal migrant from Nigeria" (sourced) that is whitewashed to "Unnamed male suspect", in which I took part in discussion and get too emotional and share my personal opinion about whitewashing Amily6 (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and not the template all the template contant, all 150 members of Nederlands parliament from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thom_van_Campen&diff=1326200834&oldid=1324236336 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurens_Dassen&diff=1326200231&oldid=1324251045

We had election lately in NL, but it was all rollback automatically without any reason Amily6 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I rolled back all of your edits made under this account, because you are already blocked under the Bildete account - none of those edits were legitimate. You are not permitted to make any further edits under any account until the block on your original account is lifted. You may wish to look at WP:SO. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit its really Give me the man and I will give you the case against him. First it was BLP, reverts, than AI, now some other account I have nothing to do with. Where you came with such a ridiculous claims that I am Bildete account? Amily6 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go up the page and read the block notice. There is nothing there about the BLP policy, reverting or AI. I'm not going to argue with you about you being Bildete, I can see you IOs, amongst other things. I will leave this request open for another CU to check my findings, naturally. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those ridiculous claims come from me being from the Netherlands as other user? Is now whole country being ban for having similar IP? Are you kidding me? I get too emotional in discussion about whitewashing of illegal migrants crimes against girl in the Netherlands and you are looking for any reason to ban me. Then anybody from NL who will get in discussion about whitewashing illegal migrants crimes in Nederland will be accused of being puppet because have similar Dutch IP. It's really black mirror, 1984 type of situation, because we all have Dutch IP in NL and if someone other from Nederland will bring it will be blocked with the same accusations, it's easier to defend from Sluggish schizophrenia. Please reverts the rollback and bring back my edits that been according to true and unblocked me Amily6 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another CU will review my findings in due course. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]