71.203.10.104

August 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Critical race theory 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: Critical race theory was changed by 71.203.10.104 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.968758 on 2020-08-30T13:15:21+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to Critical race theory, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

New message from GorillaWarfare

Hello, 71.203.10.104. You have new messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Message added 01:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Your recent edits to 8chan could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments you have made about the link to 8chan in our article on the topic. While I have to agree with some of our fellow editors that I cannot endorse your comments about the law, I wanted to extend to you something that I haven't seen anyone else do—sympathies and apologies for the experience you described when following the 8chan link. I imagine that I would be very affected for a number of days if I saw images of child abuse unexpectedly. I hope that you have or will be able to process these feelings and move beyond the incident. I'm sorry that you experienced that because of a (passive) decision that our community made in the past. It looks as if the 8chan link may remain removed, in which case I hope you feel like you have at least achieved something good from a very upsetting experience. — Bilorv (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. As stated at the top of the page, the administrator's noticeboard is for bringing things to the attention of administrators, who are editors that perform technical tasks such as deleting pages, protecting pages, blocking users, etc. It is not the right place to raise content issues, because admins don't have any special powers to decide on content. If you want to suggest a change to Wikipedia, you can use that article's talk page. Or you can create an account and edit it yourself. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Dec21

Can you please read wp:sign and wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Jan 22

Please read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Stefan Molyneux, you may be blocked from editing. Ixocactus (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

If you have issues with your treatment or users you take it to wp:ani or wp:arbcom, you do not use article talk pages to air your grievances (see wp:talk and wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Also you need to read wp:npa. Talk pages are for discussing improvement to an article, they are not a forum for airing your grievances. You have been told where to take your complaints, should you continue to miss use talk pages (and wp:editwar over it to boot) I will take it to wp:ani myself, so stop now and follow our policies.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC).

Your edits are wp:tendentious and constitute (now) a for of wp:vandalism. Yo have been told,d where to take your complaints and you are continuing to be wp:disruptive. T will report you for vandalism the next time you put one of your off-topic screeds onto a talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Marquis de Sade. Mosrod^Talk 20:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for community-incompatible discussion behavior; using Wikipedia as a battleground and/or forum.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The culture of Wikipeida prevents ANY discussion from occurring on talk to the merits of an issue or change be it the removal of child pornography, the discussion of biased sources within a biased article about a living person, or even attributing sadism to the Marquis De Sade. Any constructive edit, change, or suggestion results in cyber bullying. 71.203.10.104 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I took a look through your contributions. The problem is you, your approach to Wikipedia. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTFORUM applies. Yamla (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2022 (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 platform intentionally disseminates dis-information on a massive scale.

This platform has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal to hire professional editors yet it refuses to be accountable or responsible

A solution exists in the elimination of Section 230 protections for this dangerously flawed institution

This organization needs to be forced into reform

I reached out to Google Legal to discuss issues and concerns and their over-reliance on Wikipeida content

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

I have tried to argue points based on objectivity, critical thinking, and fact, and I have asked people to be objective to the stated rules of this platform. Wikipedia is information agnostic in that it does not care about quality or truth in content so the mob rules. The mob here has bias and instead of being an encyclopedia full of fact this eponymous site is a political platform ripe with bias. Ironically, Wikipedia is feeding the very radicalism it seeks to fight.

Through banning, vilifying, name-calling, shaming, and censorship, Wikipedia has become a very active participant and driver of a new "Cultural Revolution" with the endpoint being an amplified cycle of radicalism.

An analog of the forces at work can be found in Negative Dynamic Stability; the sine wave of instability gets wider and wider as it ocelates between two diametrically opposed and radical perspectives.

It is very likely that all the people that are now being banned, vilified, name-called, shamed, and censored as right-wing fascists today are going to push back against Wikipedia's radicalism tomorrow(left wing fascism). Radicalism invites more radicalism from the other direction with the endpoint being far worse than what people are currently engaged in "fighting."

The solution is to think and be objective; something the mob on this platform won't do. WMF is not going to spend its money and incur liability to take the ethical path.

Don't be surprised if you get what you wish for and then find out you have created a fascist state. I cannot tell you if the flavor of fascism will be left or right but its going to be terrible and this platform and its users are active participants in the outcome. You might as well be Nazi's.

Enough. If you think this way, don't use Wikipedia. But you don't get to continue your soapboxing here. Talk page access revoked for a month; you may contest this using WP:UTRS. They'll take a dim view of requests like this, though. --Yamla (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gonzalo Lira, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gonzalo Lira. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Havradim leaf a message 21:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Gonzalo Lira. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Havradim leaf a message 22:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions to Gonzalo Lira and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Cononsense (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.203.10.104, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Mr Eat (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice job, having a process where someone is bullied condemned and threatened, calling on them to defend themselves, and then blocking them from doing so.

Several editors of Gonzalo Lira are in fact "sock puppets" located in Israel; in fact they are posting as a unified group of people, and are being sponsored with considerable funds, to control a propaganda narrative. Additionally, one or more of these users has administrative rights (and is misusing those rights accordingly). There is a significant body of fact tracing the Gonzalo Lira article to Kharkiv IP address which was exactly timed to the drama of Lira's self abduction and release via an account named "Dorfpert." So yes there are sock puppets involved and there is overlap with paid editing, a team of editors working together and in brute force, and administrators who are paid to produce propaganda

PS the same Child Pornography I spoke against more than a year ago can be found on Wikipedia to this day. Good job on all counts.

So if alerting Wikipedia to paid propaganda and Child Pornography is going to be construed as "vandalism" then lets bring that to public (outside and independent) attention. Shoot me if I made a single cell phone edit; I now know am banned and will respect that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So now Doxing is also appropriate on the part of Wikipedia, there is an incredible vindictiveness on Wikipedia and by Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

---