User talk:Friendlypup13

June 2024

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 Tokyo, 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. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, Friendlypup13, 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. 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one account. What do I need to do to verify that? Friendlypup13 (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Thanks for the clarification. Please avoid creating the impression of you acting on someone else's behalf, or of coordinated discussion influence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. Friendlypup13 (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

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

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerously close to the edge of WP:NLT

This comment is treading on some very perilous ground. Wikipedia has mad no allegations regarding Mr. Smith. We have only reported what has been said in reliable sources. Claiming that Wikipedia has made allegations about Mr. Smith that have been materially harmful to his career isn't a legal threat... exactly... but between that and the appearance that you are acting on his behalf you are treading on some very thin ice here. I would suggest you be more cautious with your statements. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my mistake. I was not accusing wikipedia directly, just noting that the contents of this article could have repercussions to livelihoods. I will be much more careful. Thank you. Friendlypup13 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello Friendlypup13, how did you become aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Slacker13 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 § 26 August 2025:

Blocked and tagged indefinitely for apparent meatpuppetry. Friendlypup13 is advised that, if they wish to edit topics unrelated to Zak Smith on Wikipedia, an unblock request would be more likely to be successful if they accept a topic ban from Zak Smith as an unblock condition. — Newslinger talk 18:00, 14 September 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).

Friendlypup13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can guarantee that this is my only Wikipedia account. I am not a "sock puppet." It is accurate that this is a fairly unactive Wikipedia account. I work 60 hours a week and do not have a ton of time to be on the internet. I have, however, become more interested in Wikipedia because I believe it to represent a place of facts and unbiased information- which is why I felt compelled to comment on the page that is referenced. We are living in a time of a lot of misinformation out there on the internet (NOT accusing wikipedia of this), and I find it problematic. If anything I only commented opinions to the degree that unless an allegation is a proven fact, it should not be published in this type of space, especially if it had been disproven in a court of law. It also seemed that this was not a public figure and that was worth mentioning. If I'm blocked so be it, but I hope the powers that be will do the right thing. Friendlypup13 (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Close as unresponsive. You may makea new request when you are able to engage with us. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 24 September 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.

Nowhere does Wikipedia claim to be unbiased, which is an impossibility as all sources of information have biases. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. Regarding the block itself, would you agree to a topic ban from Zak Smith? If yes, what would you edit instead? 331dot (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]