User talk:Joeblacko

Recent edit to Evan Spiegel

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Evan Spiegel), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Evan Spiegel. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Robert F. Smith (investor) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Robert F. Smith (investor) was changed by Joeblacko (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.970262 on 2017-03-06T02:07:51+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chang Yun Chung

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Chang Yun Chung requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2017/03/21/david-rockefeller-chang-yun-chung-worlds-oldest-billionaire/amp/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bright (film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complete bullshit and you know it Joeblacko (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not going to pore salt into an open wound by extending your block this time. However this is the only page you are permitted to edit while you are blocked. If you want to appeal your block the instructions are provided in the above template. If you try to edit anywhere else while under block again you will find your block sharply increased. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you know I was blocked without justifiable cause. I was blocked because of the edits to the page Bright (film). Because of user tropic aces. He kept putting the critic opinion at the very top of the page. When it belongs nowhere but the reception tab. A review is literally just ones opinion. And he was putting it at the top of the page with facts, like the release date, who it stars etc. he claimed he was just summarizing the entire page. Which is bullshit. He didn’t include the audience score. Which is mentioned within the page? Why not summarize that? It’s very obvious why. He is bias towards the film. Which is why he includes the negative critic reviews but not the postitive audience reviews. Joeblacko (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Give me liberty or give me death!!!!!!!!! Joeblacko (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn’t user Tropic Aces blocked as well? If I’m edit warring then so is he. It takes two to have a war. He’s deleting my edits and I’m deleting his. Yet I’m the only one suspended? Wtf Joeblacko (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice

Hello, Joe Blacko. Here few observations from an uninvolved administrator:

You were edit warring, so the block is not "bullshit".
The block is only 24 hours, and you can return to editing if you avoid edit warring.
You are not going to get banned over this minor incident, even if you ask.
When your block expires, you should make your case at Talk:Bright (film). There are other forms of dispute resolution available if you are not satisfied.
In conclusion, do not edit war and do not evade blocks by editing logged out. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is user Tropic Aces temporary suspended? Because if I’m edit warring then so is he, right? It takes two to have a war Joeblacko (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he’s not blocked. He has been making edits today. Why am I the only one blocked? He’s warring too by deleting my edits Joeblacko (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm EricEnfermero. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Bright (film) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Sharon Leal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 21:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing content, why don’t you take 5 seconds to add the easily found source yourself... Joeblacko (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 數神 (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you’re talking about, Bot Joeblacko (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I am referring to this edit to the page Flemingsburg, Kentucky where you inserted profanity in the section Notable people. Please stop your disruptive editing. 數神 (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am not a bot.

Hello, I'm L293D. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Asa Griggs Candler—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at Wayfair. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with being blocked from editing, or other sanctions. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. The cited reliable source (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wayfair-trafficking-children/) clearly discusses that the claim is false and entirely without evidence. Do not remove this wording again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making false claims. Language matters. Stop using the word falsely when there’s no evidence it’s false. You need to look up the definition of false & unsubstantiated. Joeblacko (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That you disagree with the cited reliable source is utterly irrelevant. If you don't cease removing cited debunking of utter nonsense, you will surely be blocked. Pinging Acroterion and Ohnoitsjamie. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My guy. It literally uses the word unsubstantiated in the cited reference. Literally in the first sentence. It says unsubstantiated, not false. Joeblacko (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator warning: do not promote or lend credibility to lunatic nonsense by omission or watering-down. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously tried to warn you, but you didn't take heed. If I claimed without a single shred of evidence that Donald Trump was a Martian sent here to destroy human civilization, we wouldn't say "there's an unsubstantiated theory that Donald Trump is a Martian sent here to destroy human civilization." We'd say it's utterly false nonsense. And so too with this utterly false nonsense invented by some dipshit on Reddit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How am I promoting lunatic nonsense? I am editing the language to reflect the language of the cited source. There is no evidence this theory is “FALSE”. Wtf Joeblacko (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't take anything QAnon adherents say seriously, and editors who edit-war to water things down to "maybe" or "nobody's proven it isn't" get sanctioned. You are sanctioned for personal attacks, disruptive editing and violation of the biographies of living persons policy - real people can be harmed by this kind of nonsense. This was the same kind of editing pattern that has plagued articles on the Sandy Hook shooting - that nobody has proven that the victims are dead, that they aren't crisis actors, etc. And the same thing with the Pizzagate lunacy. Don't give that stuff oxygen. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice hyperbole- not sure if you know that word, probably not. However, I’ll entertain it. If there was a possible link that did show Donald trump was a Martian, and multiple credible sources reported on it, then yes, I would. It’s unsubstantiated, not false. False is when something has been proven to be not true. This theory has not been proven— yet.

For the record, I think the theory is total crap. Doesn’t mean it’s been proven false. Joeblacko (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

after reading the guidelines, I am asking for a review of my block. I have been blocked for changing a word from falsely to unsubstantiated. Reason being is the following text in the article has not been proven to be true nor false. It honestly shouldn’t be listed on the page to begin with- but it was deemed a valid subsection due to it picking up steam within the media. In the referenced Newsweek article that’s cited on the page, it even uses the word unsubstantiated. I’ve done nothing but change the text to reflect the language that was used within a cited reference on the page. With that being said, I realize that these blocks are very much arbitrary based on what an administrator thinks. With that being said, If you don’t agree with my edit for whatever arbitrary reason, I accept that and will stop editing the page and ask to be unblockedJoeblacko (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked "for changing a word," you were blocked for edit-warring against a consensus. You'll need to make it clear that you understand what edit-warring is before anyone considers an unblock.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:27, 12 July 2020 (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.

Joeblacko (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that you were edit-warring to do that? Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring to do what? I’m genuinely asking. Joeblacko (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring. Full stop. That's disruptive and blockable. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of what an edit war is. I’m also aware that it takes two parties to be in a war. Which means you’re siding with the other person. Which is laughable. Whether you think this claim is “lunatic nonsense” or harmful is irrelevant. If you think that then take it off the page entirely! It was deemed by the consensus valid enough to be included on the Wikipedia page in the first place. So if you’re going to deem it valid enough to be listed on the Wikipedia page, then you need to allow it to be described accurately. Which is that the claim is unsubstantiated, not false. Please explain how anything I just said was inaccurate. Joeblacko (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am acknowledging that I know what an edit war is. I’m also acknowledging that the other user was edit warring as well. I’m also acknowledging that personal opinions of administrators are being allowed to determine how pages are described. I finally realize why schools don’t allow Wikipedia to be used as a reliable source. I disagree with it entirely but I acknowledge it and will cease from editing this page.Joeblacko (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not show that you understand your mistakes, and is pretty childish. Re: the WayFair edits: we report what reliable sources say. For example, Snopes called it false, thus we call it false. Don't attempt to twist sources to your viewpoint. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:46, 12 July 2020 (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.

Joeblacko (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you think the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is false, or merely unsubstantiated? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with that page, so I can’t answer that. Not sure why we’re trying to steer to another page all of a sudden. Either remove the Wayfair Theory section from the Wayfair page, or describe it accurately. Which is that it hasn’t been debunked, it hasn’t been proven false, it hasn’t been proven true. Right now it’s unsubstantiated i.e not proven, disproven or supported by evidence. I really don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this haha my god Joeblacko (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your last unblock request, I think you're on your way to ceasing from editing Wikipedia in general. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding why you don't get that there is a reliable source cited in the article which clearly and unambiguously describes the theory as false and you do not have consensus to remove that description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha oh no what will I do!! Talk about an arbitrary reason. What a joke. Y’all have a good night. Joeblacko (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm Timothy19. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Flemingsburg, Kentucky have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Timothy19 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning before indef block

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piss off Joeblacko (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I have over 1000 burner accounts. Go touch grass, virgin Joeblacko (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]