User talk:Cavaliers247

Welcome, welcome

September 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to User talk:Ad Orientem, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish, you may be blocked from editing. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize, I left a message on a talk page. Stop leaving me false notices. Cavaliers 24/7 00:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Canucklehead. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 00:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize anything; I added my viewpoint in a new section of a user talk page.@LilianaUwU Cavaliers 24/7 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't go around on random pages and tell people abortion is murder (it isn't, by the way). That's not how Wikipedia works. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 00:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Cavaliers247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I did not "vandalize" anything or any page. I added my viewpoint on an issue in a new section of a talk page. That is not vandalism, nor does it constitute Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. This is plainly an erroneous block. Cavaliers 24/7 00:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

You may not abuse your account to lecture or attack other editors on what you think they ought to believe, or to promote a cause. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (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.

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable, WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, and WP:CIR. Nythar^T^.^C 00:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

Hi. Please read WP:TALK. The goal of talk pages is to discuss the creation of the encyclopedia. To some degree, Wikipedians also socialize. Condemning Wikipedians' personal political beliefs is unwelcome and unproductive. Wikipedia is a left-wing website so you won't persuade anyone here, especially with your screed. I think the kids now suggest you "cope and seethe." Also, unblocks can only ever be accomplished through kowtowing. Arguing the block was unfair has never worked, ever. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 abortion. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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 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).

Cavaliers247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I now understand that I should not try to debate on user talk pages regarding politics, and I should keep my political views to myself on Wikipedia. I will not discuss that again or attempt to talk about it on user talk pages. I do not feel the block is necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia as I did not attempt to edit or vandalize any articles, but rather, just posted my views on some user talk pages; nevertheless, I now can see why Wikipedia is not the proper place for those discussions, and will not continue to discuss politics on here. I'd like to get back to building the encyclopedia now. Cavaliers 24/7 04:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to RazorThick, despite this user's claim to the contrary. I will strengthen the block to reflect this. Yamla (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2022 (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.

Your first 20 edits were to your userspace. Minutes later, you began posting those messages on others' user talk pages. Have you used other accounts on Wikipedia? Nythar^T^.^C 06:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nythar:, thanks for the note. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a few weeks with my IP address, and decided yesterday to make an account so I could have my own user page to build. I was inspired to after seeing User:Eagles247's impressive userpage. I saw some really cool signatures and needed an account to make one, so I did. I am sorry for discussing politics in people's user pages. My indefinite block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and I want to start contributing to some articles relating to pharmacology, a topic on which I am an expert, having graduated from Jefferson Medical College in 2021 and now being an M.D. As You can see here, there are many drugs that need articles, and I want to help.

That's great, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Personal knowledge is of little value in encyclopedia writing. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you have now violated WP:3X, you (you personally) are now considered banned by the community. --Yamla (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your BLP violation at Talk:Warren Moon

A big obstacle to removing your block is your recent edit [1] in violation of WP:BLP. It was promptly reverted as vandalism. It's hard to fathom any reason for your venom directed against Hall of Fame quarterback Warren Moon (you wrote "If he were white he would be regarded as trash.") other than his race. Anti-Black hate is not welcome on Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That certainly gives me pause. A racist physician? Not uncommon, I guess. A physician I respected greatly shocked the Hell out of me with some off the cuff remarks. That's kinda a non starter on Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]