User talk:ControversiesEditor

Welcome!

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

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!

Alejandra Caraballo

First of, the section you added, gave WP:UNDUE weight to a tweet (which may have been wrong, but that does not constitute a "controversy"). Second, the tweets are, in all likelyhood, copyrighted. If not by the original author, then at least by twitter. 15:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If a claim is spread to 80M people, reported by some newspapers and treated as fact while disproved by authorities, that's the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Public Twitter screenshots have no copyrights. They are public. ControversiesEditor (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is a "conspiracy theory" is not the point. The points are neutrality (in not lending undue weight to storms in a teacup) and copyright violations. Whoever the copyright holder may e, you tried to pass it off as "own work" o Commons, and issued a CC-by-SA license, which you cannot do. 15:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. For something to qualify as a "conspiracy theory". the theory needs to feature a conspiracy. Absent that, this is most certainly not one. Kleuske (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a bias and should not be part of Wikipedia. ControversiesEditor (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would qualify as a personal attack. Don't do that. Kleuske (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding her real/dead name is not an attack. She's a public figure. All public figure have their real name public. This prove you have a bias and should not be moderating. I will report your behaviour and the removal of my unbiased section. ControversiesEditor (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were threatening that on the TP of the article. Please keep the discussion somewhat organized. The personal attack, above, was directected at yours truly. Kleuske (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you are biased and should not moderate wikipedia is a fact, not an attack. If you feel offended and hurt, find a safe place and stay there. ControversiesEditor (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that you're saying it. True. It is also a fact that it's a personal attack. Kleuske (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, how many of you are here looking after Caraballo's page? ControversiesEditor (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check my editing history. It's public. You'll find I look after A LOT of pages. Kleuske (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working hard to safeguard Caraballo. ControversiesEditor (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a general notice and has nothing to do with Alejandra Caraballo specifically. Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]