User talk:Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance

November 2024

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 Second presidential transition of Donald Trump, 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. Bailmoney27 ^talk 04:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Doug Weller talk 08:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

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 ~~~~}}.

Your trolling username references a controversy, and you are pushing your own point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But my edits made true and notable claims about the article topic, and were scrupulously well referenced. What dispute could there be about such well-known facts? You should be thanking me for adding much welcomed references and adding information on one of the most widely discussed and consequential effects of the transition, the massive transfer of wealth upwards to the wealthiest americans, Trump and his billionaire friends and investors in his campaign. Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello im Paytonisboss and i see that you have been blocked for vandilisim please refrain from adding unrefrenced information to wikipideia articles as it is not sourced or reliable and it dose not follow WP:IRS have a great day best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take that personal attack back. Calling me a vandal is a vicious smear. My edits had many pertinent, reliably sourced references. Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

On the contrary, I am here to build an encyclopedia stocked with well referenced claims and truths for it is only in building an encyclopedia that we can combat the growing threat of Fascism and the Big Lie and Donald Trump. I am here to build an encylopedia brick by brick with well-researched and finely-crafted prose, which is in evidence by a close reading of my edits, which you’ll find on second thought were highly constructive and greatlY improved the article, supplying notable information related to the article topic with references in support of all claims. I added an aspect of the presidential transition, the article topic, that our encyclopedia improperly failed to cover, despite extensive discussion in very many notable and reliable sources. I have committed no crime. And is it not better to let 100 guilty men free than to hang one innocent man? Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your username violates the username policy and you will need to propose a new one that we can rename this account to, one that does not reference something controversial. Wikipedia is not here to "combat" anything and I don't find that your edits were an improvement. I don't see a pathway to you being unblocked without agreeing to a topic ban from the post-1992 American politics contentious topic area and telling what you will edit about instead. Maybe someone else will, but not me. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please look upon my good works. My edit was reliably sourced notable highly relevant information to the article topic, written in finely tuned prose. I have not been given a fair chance. Even if you disagreed with my edit, it was a good faith contribution to the article I certainly think it improved it by providing relevant, reliably sourced context. By no means was a block warranted. My political perspective does not at all lead me to abandon the grand detached encyclopedic style and tone in my writings here; there is a place for polemic and a place for cold facts and cold facts are all I gave you. I have only come to help.Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. Yamla (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been unfairly judged. Please, examine my edits and good works. You will find they provided reliably sourced, notable, and highly relevant information to the article, written in finely tuned, supple prose. Even if you somehow disagree with my contribution, it was a good faith contribution to the article that simply provided relevant, well-referenced context on the article topic to the introduction, which should always mention the significant controversies related to one’s topic. My political perspective does not at all lead me to abandon the grand detached encyclopedic style and tone in my writings here; there is a place for polemic and a place for cold facts and cold facts are all I gave you. I have only come to help. A block is not needed to prevent harm. Fearlessleaderoftheantitrumpresistance (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:47, 13 November 2024 (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.

I strongly suggest the reviewing admin yank talk page access. Note also this is a Confirmed sock of Fearless Speech, blocked for personal attacks or harassment. --Yamla (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good work detective. Indeed, I have been known by many names. But I repent! My edits were constructive, well-written, exhaustively sourced—- all that you’ve come to expect from me. I have never once vandalized or desecrated encyclopedia article content or articlespace, on any account. I was blocked only for my somewhat acid tongue on talk pages. I admit, in my youth I used some pointed phrases with the wide-eyed Trump/Musk minions who have made negative contributions to our articles. We are all on the same team here guys. I repent! I wish to atone my sins! I invoke WP:Atonement and WP: Standard offer

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 posting of this notice.