User talk:Fogoros09

August 2020

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia). Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia), you may be blocked from editing. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to correct false information, any help on how to do so is much appreciated.

Notification

Hello, Fogoros09. You have new messages at Blablubbs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia). Jacona (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume my gender, as you did in this edit. I'll assume you meant no harm this time, but if you continue, I will consider it something else. Jacona (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jacona (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fogoros09 reported by User:JavaHurricane (Result: ). Thank you. Java Hurricane 16:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello Fogoros09. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Fogoros09. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Fogoros09|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no financial interest whatsoever in the school, where did this come from? Fogoros09 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely in reference to this edit, specifically the sentence I am a founding member of the school (and therefore a first person source), and can tell you that this was not the reason for the formation. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was 50 years ago. Don’t have anything to do with the place now. And trust me, they were never compensating me in anyway. Fogoros09 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Asserting that an article is "slander" is a legal threat. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in taking legal action against anyone. Fogoros09 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you are accusing editors of Sockpuppetry. This is a serious allegation and if you don't have any evidence, it is uncivil behavior. If you believe this to be true, you should open a sock puppet investigation. Otherwise, please assume good faith and do not attack other editors in this manner. Jacona (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Sockpuppetry is not present, as I do not believe one user is using multiple accounts (although this could be the case, I do not have evidence to prove). However, there is a clear agenda here by users such as yourself (Jacona), BillhPike, and others who frequent the pages of small southeastern private schools looking to label them all as "segragation academies". Although certainly many schools were formed for this purpose, it appears this group works together to frame all as so, regardless of evidence. It is an obvious group movement as the same editors appear on each page, suggesting collusion to create bias and disrupt WP's neutrality. Fogoros09 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In each of the articles that I am aware of, they are only called segregation academies if there is a reliable source that does so. If I find one that makes such a claim without a reliable source, I remove it. However, there are no shortage of people who have been involved in creating these racist schools and now are either embarrassed by it or want to try to hide the truth by removing this information. It's odd that some people complain about "erasing history" when symbols of white supremacy are removed, then those very same person want to erase history on Wikipedia. It's so hard on racists to be consistent.Jacona (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly are biased Jacona which is sad and against Wikipedia policy. Not sure what racists and erasing history have to do with anything. I am a bleeding heart liberal and the biggest supporter of integration there is. However, I also believe neutrality is important, and we should report the facts as they exist. The school has been accused of being a “segregation academy”, but there is not enough evidence to list this as fact and not controversy. That’s why I have kept it listed as it is important to remain in the text, however just in it’s appropriate place. Fogoros09 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia)) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia)) for The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia).

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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. You libs are full of it. Fogoros09 (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Billhpike. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have 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. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha whatever, Wikipedia has been taken over by the lib mob like yourself. It’s sad. It’s either comply with your agenda or be blocked. I’ll take the block. Fogoros09 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]