QPhysics137
Welcome
editWelcome!
Hello, QPhysics137, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
RJFJR (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
April 2018
edit
Hello, I'm Septrillion. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Paul Nehlen— 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. Septrillion (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Paul Nehlen, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Paul Nehlen. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--NeilN talk to me 00:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ChiveFungi. I noticed that you made a comment 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. (While mild, "doofus" counts as a personal attack). --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@ChiveFungi: "it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner." Why don't you tell that to the morons who are calling me a liar even after I've explained what is and isn't libel to them with references and removing my edits so they can keep their hateful pejoratives on a page? Maybe you should read the "5 Pillars of Wikipedia" if you want to talk about "core principles" such as "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." And I really don't give a flying fig who you are...what makes you think you have the right to remove what I've said? I guess you don't recognize censorship when you're the one doing it, right? Now why don't you go mind your own business and worry about making yourself a good person instead of bothering everybody else? QPhysics137 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ChiveFungi (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)@ChiveFungi: Awwwwwww...what's the matter little baby...did I hurt your poor little feelings? LOL Grow up you pathetic moron. You come onto my page deleting stuff I've written, and when I tell you to mind your own business, you get all bent out of shape like the tiny-brained, thin-skinned baby it's now clear that you are. QPhysics137 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
QPhysics137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
People come onto MY page, call me a liar, ignore the facts when I present them with references, delete stuff I've written then leave notes about "no censorship"...but when I say something about it, I am the bad guy? Some people around here need to grow up and mind their own business. QPhysics137 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Abuse of unblock requests to attack everybody else you've interacted with has caused your talkpage access to be revoked. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2018 (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.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 01:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Continuing the blatant personal attacks after you were blocked for making personal attacks shows you have no intention of following WP:5P4 - one of the pillars you are fond of pointing to. --NeilN talk to me 02:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: I'll start paying attention to the 5 Pillars when you do, doofus. *YOU* are supposed to be an administrator, but you refuse to take down language that is clearly in violation of the rules...but that's fine...you're just showing your true colors...and they're pretty pathetic. Ban me all you want, loser...you're just proving me right. You don't care about the truth, you just want to foist your agenda. QPhysics137 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
QPhysics137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #27482 was submitted on Nov 05, 2019 21:22:33. This review is now closed.