User talk:Basketcase2022
Basketcase2022
|
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For taking BLP violations seriously on Talk:Julian Assange. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC) |
November 2021
[edit]In this edit, you managed to quote from the policy you violated in the edit summary of the edit which violated it. I moved the article closer to the long-standing status quo. The "challenged" edit was one of those that preceded it. Look before you edit. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: The text I corrected was not "longstanding" -- it has been contested from the moment the Yahoo! publication appeared. Further, it misrepresented the source and jumped ahead of issues still unresolved in the RfC. I suggest you self revert in order to preclude an Arbitration Enforcement action against you. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: You didn't correct any text. What are you talking about?
- You sought to impose the same inappropriate representation of the sources and avoidance of NPOV that you did a month ago. You ignored the clear consensus on the talk page for the version prior to your edit. Use the talk if you want to seek consensus for your edit. Good luck. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Even though it hasn't been closed yet the RFC has established a pretty conclusive consensus. Any editing against that is clearly disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: If we have established a "pretty conclusive consensus," isn't it time to close the RfC with an equally conclusive summary of said consensus to avoid confusion? If so, please make that happen. I've been an editor for less than 4 months and don't know how to do it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Anyway, the trivia about someone notifying a congressinal committee is not informative or encyclopedic. Apparently nothing came of it. Anyone can call up a congresswoman and ask for a hearing or investigation. Means nothing. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: If we have established a "pretty conclusive consensus," isn't it time to close the RfC with an equally conclusive summary of said consensus to avoid confusion? If so, please make that happen. I've been an editor for less than 4 months and don't know how to do it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of incident
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cambial — foliar❧ 04:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 (2)
[edit]
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:NedFausa per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NedFausa. 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. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)