User talk:84.13.196.157

May 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Paul Waldman—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. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Paul Waldman. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Statement Suppressed

MaterialScientist, my factual edit was reverted without justification. As you are a Materials Scientist who takes pictures of birds I do find myself wondering how you can be on such a "vandalism-squashing" hair trigger. Therefore my question to you is: how much do they pay you to gate-keep their Orwellian information control structure? Come on, come clean.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 (2)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - MrX 🖋 01:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Standard alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PA

Read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you had wanted to have "reach a resolution" insulting other editors is not a way to do it. Until you stop that I will not even engage with you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 (3)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to share with you a couple of pages to help you communicate more effectively on talk pages. One is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The other is Wikipedia:Indentation which explains the important conventions for formatting your talk page comments so that others understand who you are are responding to. Help:Talk pages also provides some guidance. Please let me know if you need any help. Also, when you post comments, please sign them with four tildes (~~~~). - MrX 🖋 15:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Signing your posts and threading your comments is not optional.[1] - MrX 🖋 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Indent and sign

You are making it very hard to follow the conversation as you do not indent or sign. Please read wp:indent and wp:sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deleted post

"you effin dog." is a wp:pa, and that is why that edit ~~was~~ would have been undone. One of many PA's you have made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its also still there , its a different page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 (4)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

I altered a biography of Waldman ages ago. No-one blocked me at the time, though my changes were reverted. This was dragged up later by Black Kite and JzG when I began a series of legitimate questions (with no personal attacks) and investigations into the RS on the "Plandemic" and "Judy Mikovits" pages. Therefore the block was motivated by opposition to my legitimate concerns about these two articles. Therefore the block is not justified. Please get back to me on this. I am VERY unhappy about this. 84.13.196.157 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Decline reason:

The block was motivated by personal attacks like this. As you don't address that with this statement, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 9 May 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.

I am blocked by JzG from Wikipedia for repeatedly questioning the RS offered to support a hit piece on Judy Mikovits & "Plandemic". Disgraceful.

Editing from 84.13.196.157 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JzG‬ for the following reason(s): Violations of the biographies of living persons policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Waldman&diff=prev&oldid=955183890), personal attacks and repudiation of WP:RS (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judy_Mikovits&diff=prev&oldid=955599835).

I altered a biography of Waldman ages ago. No-one blocked me at the time, though my changes were reverted. It was dragged up later when I began a series of questions and investigations into the RS on the "Plandemic" and "Judy Mikovits" pages. Therefore the block was motivated by opposition to my legitimate concerns about these two articles. Therefore the block is not justified.

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).

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

Request reason:

I altered a biography of Waldman ages ago. No-one blocked me at the time, though my changes were reverted. I understand that my edits at the time were not constructive. This was dragged up later by Black Kite and JzG when I began a series of legitimate questions (with no personal attacks) and investigations into the RS on the "Plandemic" and "Judy Mikovits" pages. Therefore the block was motivated not by my previous behaviour but by opposition to my legitimate concerns about these two articles. Therefore the block is not justified. I was no ruder to anyone than they were to me (Roxy the Effin Dog "could not stop laughing" at my initial comment). The block took place at a point in the discussion (and you should check this) when I had conclusively and definitively proven to anyone who reads the "Talk" page of the "Plandemic" article that the RS for the claim (in "Reception" section) that "Scientists, doctors and public health experts condemned the film for promoting misinformation and "a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories"" was a claim that was not supported by the 3 (then 4) listed RS's. I proved this to Slatersteven repeatedly. You can read these 4 sections for yourself and decide. When Slatersteven gave up the ghost, Black Kite appeared, made various largely unsubstantiated accusations, then I was promptly blocked by JzG and the sections containing my concerns were locked down and closed to discussion. Please get back to me on this. Please justify these actions. I am VERY unhappy about this. I am hereby formally complaining about actions taken by Black Kite and JzG, and requesting that they have their privileges to perform these kinds of actions revoked. My contention is that their actions were unjustified, motivated not by any violation, but by opposition to what I was saying. A large section of my text full of details and arguments was simply deleted by someone from the "Judy Mikovits" Talk page. You should check the arguments for yourself and see what was deleted and what has been shut down. This topic is EXTREMELY important for the world, and people have simply shut down discussion of it, with the only valid reason being a single edit I made on the Waldman page ages ago, which if it was so bad, I should have been blocked for at the time. 84.13.196.157 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because rather than reassure that disruption is going to cease, it indicates that you intend to continue to push comments that have already been discussed, and dismissed, at the talk pages concerned. There comes a point at which the community's patience can become exhausted by a vehement editor pushing for a particular outcome, despite clear indications that that outcome is against the consensus of editors here. Continuing to push a point past the natural conclusion of a debate is considered disruptive, and is a valid reason for a block. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay: What is the correct way to appeal this denial of unblocking me? The reasons you give are not valid. My criticisms of the article were that the other authors were failing to adhere to WP:RS policy, as explained in detail on the Talk page. If your reasoning is followed, then it is the case that Wikipedia articles are a product of consensus between editors even if the majority are refusing to follow WP:RS policy. You need to look into this in more detail to understand why I feel this way. On a very important topic, a highly biased and terribly sourced article was produced, and defended by a group of editors even when I had run rings round all their arguments. Read the page and you will see this. When they had lost all the arguments, in came Black Kite, JzG and now you DrKay, to revoke all my privileges on the flimsiest of grounds. If the debate was naturally concluded, it was only because they had lost the debate and had to call in the big dogs. Read it and you will see! If this is way things work, then wikipedia is a controlled structure that bears at most an accidental relationship with the facts they purport to discuss.

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.

May 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jonathan Fanene 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: Jonathan Fanene was changed by 84.13.196.157 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.969875 on 2020-05-25T11:34:33+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Glen 11:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.