This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Can you explain why you removed a well-sourced section of Sound of Freedom (film) with this edit? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Red Slapper, thanks for starting a discussion on the article's talk page. You may like to participate in the section "RfC: QAnon", a subsection of an already-existing accuracy discussion about WP:SYNTH concerns.
I had fully protected the page to stop an edit war before, and there has been considerable disruption around the Accuracy section already. It may not have been your intention, but you have joined an edit war with your reverts. I'm glad to see that this has stopped for now; please keep up discussing instead of edit warring. RfCs are usually closed after 30 days, not even a third of which have passed. Please wait until a formal closure exists instead of re-removing the section.
Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 23:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It’s like “however” only worse. See MOS:EDITORIAL. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand it is hard when your being subject to bad faith, but the rules are the rules and you can’t be uncivil regardless of the circumstances. It’s easy to be blocked for bad faith, but it’s more easy to be blocked for uncivilly. At best be gracious with the issue at hand. Wolfquack ( talk) 02:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Please, you aren't helping. See FZ's talk page to see what I've told him. He seems a pretty good editor normally, great on spotting socks. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
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.Red Slapper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I should be unblocked because this is my only account, and I haven't abused it. I have no idea what this is about Red Slapper ( talk) 22:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Simple denial is insufficient. You need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. Yamla ( talk) 22:50, 23 July 2023 (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.
Red Slapper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thanks for pointing me to that, at least now I know what you're talking about. I don't really know how to respond to what is there - it is just a bunch of general observations that could apply to so many people - shares the same POV with another editor? talks about reliable sources? Some of it seems clearly wrong - 'multiple short, increasingly snippy replies in talk page discussions' and suggesting to compare with [3] where one of the last edits by that user on a Talk page is a 1300 character missive? Red Slapper ( talk) 00:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Aside from what is stated at the SPI, this is a checkuser block, meaning that private technical evidence supports it. This makes it difficult to accept the information in the SPI as a mere coincidence. If technical evidence has led to the wrong conclusion, you will need to describe how. 331dot ( talk) 10:37, 24 July 2023 (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 is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Can you explain why you removed a well-sourced section of Sound of Freedom (film) with this edit? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Red Slapper, thanks for starting a discussion on the article's talk page. You may like to participate in the section "RfC: QAnon", a subsection of an already-existing accuracy discussion about WP:SYNTH concerns.
I had fully protected the page to stop an edit war before, and there has been considerable disruption around the Accuracy section already. It may not have been your intention, but you have joined an edit war with your reverts. I'm glad to see that this has stopped for now; please keep up discussing instead of edit warring. RfCs are usually closed after 30 days, not even a third of which have passed. Please wait until a formal closure exists instead of re-removing the section.
Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 23:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It’s like “however” only worse. See MOS:EDITORIAL. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand it is hard when your being subject to bad faith, but the rules are the rules and you can’t be uncivil regardless of the circumstances. It’s easy to be blocked for bad faith, but it’s more easy to be blocked for uncivilly. At best be gracious with the issue at hand. Wolfquack ( talk) 02:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Please, you aren't helping. See FZ's talk page to see what I've told him. He seems a pretty good editor normally, great on spotting socks. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
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.Red Slapper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I should be unblocked because this is my only account, and I haven't abused it. I have no idea what this is about Red Slapper ( talk) 22:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Simple denial is insufficient. You need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. Yamla ( talk) 22:50, 23 July 2023 (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.
Red Slapper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thanks for pointing me to that, at least now I know what you're talking about. I don't really know how to respond to what is there - it is just a bunch of general observations that could apply to so many people - shares the same POV with another editor? talks about reliable sources? Some of it seems clearly wrong - 'multiple short, increasingly snippy replies in talk page discussions' and suggesting to compare with [3] where one of the last edits by that user on a Talk page is a 1300 character missive? Red Slapper ( talk) 00:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Aside from what is stated at the SPI, this is a checkuser block, meaning that private technical evidence supports it. This makes it difficult to accept the information in the SPI as a mere coincidence. If technical evidence has led to the wrong conclusion, you will need to describe how. 331dot ( talk) 10:37, 24 July 2023 (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.