Megasteel32

Fuck outta here

To reply to your edit summary

No, you technically can't do whatever you want on your talk page, it is still subject to Wikipedia's policies.

Thanks. Q ^{T C} 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool, explain what policy it breaks, cause it ain't harassment. Megasteel32 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Before you blanked it Synorem covered it pretty concisely. Thanks. Q ^{T C} 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That was telling someone to fuck off, not putting a message on my page that says "Fuck outta here". Who am I harassing with that, the void? Megasteel32 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Our page about civility can be found here if you need a reference, you could focus on this section Q ^{T C} 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If "Fuck" is gross profanity this site is doomed. Megasteel32 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't is not the focus @OverlordQ is trying to get across. Even if you were right - it is not enough. "Fuck outta here" is uncivil, and in the same article I have linked - it states that the civility rule includes user's talk pages. Synorem (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem you're still here? and no, it's not uncivil, it's expressive. Megasteel32 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Since 2022, yes. Expressive comments can still be uncivil; they do not contrast. If you want to get nit-picky about it, your comment uses profanity and rudeness - as per to §1.a Identifying incivility. Again, very nit-picky, but you did ask. Synorem (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem again, it's not excessive nor rude. Megasteel32 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

'fuck' is a listed obscenity - by definition, it is. Synorem (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Results of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. See WP:BRD Esolo5002 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esolo5002 I'm sorry but you're the one fucking with the article, misrepresenting votes. Please keep your Zionist biases out of your edits and accusations. Megasteel32 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This kind of language is totally unacceptable. I would advise you to not do this again if you do not want your account banned. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esolo5002 Whomp whomp, no it's not. Excessive is, that ain't. I'd advise you to stop pearl clutching and be productive, ie. stop touching my edits without contributing to the talk page like I have. Megasteel32 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually the WP:BRD cycle suggests the onus is on you to take it to the talk page to seek consensus after a revert. However, because I have no interest in violating the WP:3RR, I have taken that step for you. You can participate on the ongoing discussion here. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esolo5002 I already did Bozo, you apparently didn't check it. Megasteel32 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless you operate a second account that disagrees with you, you haven't. You did make a comment on a month old thread that was advocating for the creation of an uncommitted section. That section had already been created by the time you made that comment yesterday. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Esolo5002 Oh so you did read my comment but ignored it. Yeah you started a new thread for nothing lol. Megasteel32 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I got you to engage properly on the talk page! That way we can hear a wide breadth of opinions on what should be done. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Synorem (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

you really need to take your template messages elsewhere since you apparently are unaware of the full context. go to the talk page, there is already discussion about this, they are ignoring that. thank you! Megasteel32 (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is a discussion, tend to the discussion: not the main article. Even if "they're ignoring it" I draw your attention to the second point - even if you believe you're right, do not edit war. Synorem (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

how can I tend to a discussion that someone is not present for? Megasteel32 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you not just say there was a discussion about this? If you meant 'they're not responding' then as there is an unresolved dispute, it'd probably be best to get a third-party review. I can see this edit war reigniting without a proper solution. Synorem (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You're currently being very annoying, please go away. Megasteel32 (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Megasteel32! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

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

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish don't care, didn't ask Megasteel32 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish again, don't care didn't ask Megasteel32 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish that's not a personal attack y'all soft Megasteel32 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I don't think you're in a position to tell me what I'm here to do Megasteel32 (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Megasteel32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

ScottishFinnishRabbit doesn't know what a personal attack is

Decline reason:

When you're in a hole, stop digging. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:20, 14 June 2024 (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.