User talk:GoogleMeNowPlease

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15 November 2019 14:44:42 (UTC)

I wish to note

Your edit history includes four null edits as your 6th through 10th edits, immediately followed by your 11th edit, to a semi-protected page Template:Catholic Church sidebar. This looks very prejudicial to me, seemingly indicating impatience and an above-the-rules attitude. Your ensuing edits are not dissuasive. Shenme (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome GoogleMeNowPlease!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,429,670 registered editors!

Hello GoogleMeNowPlease. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, User:Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Creating links in posts

Hi - thanks for posting at length on Gospel, and I'll try to get back later today. In the meantimew, about links:
You've given about a dozen links to sources you'd like us to look at, but you've done it in a way that creates a lot of work for the reader (and it must have been a lot of work for you too). Instead of linking to another Wikipedia article, which means the reader must then try to track down the book involved, do this:

Bring up the book you want to link to (for arguments sake, the Cambridge History of Christianity), and highlight/copy the url (which is https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6UTfmw_zStsC&pg=PA23&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Your own posting might say: "Please refer to the Cambridge History of Christianity". Paste the url immediately in front of that, with a one-space gap between the end of the url and the start of your words ("https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6UTfmw_zStsC&pg=PA23&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Please refer to the Cambridge...")
Put SINGLE square brackets ant the front and back of all that, and it looks like this: Please refer to the Cambridge...

Hope this helps and that I haven't been too patronising :) Achar Sva (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Gospel 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gospel; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pumpkin seed oil, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. For content on medical topics, we rely on WP:MEDRS reviews. Zefr (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christianity and Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schismatic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bemused.

I thought I'd been quite welcoming to you, as in the post about links that I made on this page some weeks ago. I'm sorry if I've offended you. Achar Sva (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not offended me. Wikipedia is not personal. I am concerned about your editing, not anything else, because I seem to run into you on too many pages GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Personal attacks like I personally believe that atheism is the most disgusting ideology to have existed and has no place in a happy and a free society, but I definitely will not go around trying to promote this view in Wikipedia. are prohibited by the Nondiscrimination resolution. According to you devout Buddhists, Confucianists, Taoists and Shintoists should have no place in society because they are Atheists (they don't believe in gods). If you continue like that, next step is WP:ANI and you will probably get indeffed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also valid for edit summaries (WP:PA, WP:SUMMARYNO). It was also unclear who this one was directed at, but neither I nor Achar Sva are new editors (although their current account is recent because of a password loss issue). Comments should really focus on content, except at personal user pages or an administrator noticeboard for behavioral issues. It should be possible to disagree and seek consensus without name-calling. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 16:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to eliminate the competition that way. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pemalink to ANI discussion --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20: 19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 22:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I am the one who is blocked (Personal attack removed) --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism (Personal attack removed) --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Sandstein 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 29193

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #29193 was submitted on 2020-02-28 01:14:42. This review is now closed.

331dot (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 30263

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #30263 was submitted on 2020-04-23 17:44:28. This review is now closed.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:09, 23 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe that Wikipedia has made it clear that a ban is not meant to be for punishment and for disciplining, but for the purpose of protecting the encyclopedia from being derailed. My appeals are my way of letting moderators know that I fully pledge not to repeat any behavior that was contributing to the server being derailed. I have in the past apologized for my puerile behavior and vow to not repeat it. I have patiently waited for 6 months without editing Wikipedia and believe that I am more than ready to contribute to this encyclopedia. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below (chronological order) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (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.

@Sandstein: @Yamla: — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoogleMeNowPlease (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoogleMeNowPlease,

You write about "(derailing) behavior" and "puerile behavior", having waited for a fixed amount of time, and now being "more than ready to contribute".

This is very unspecific; please have a look at the guide for appealing blocks and take your time to properly address the problems that led to the block.

In your new request, please do not ping a specific administrator; it will be answered by an independent reviewer. This may take weeks or even months. As long as your name appears in the table at CAT:RFU, it won't be forgotten; please be patient.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made mistakes when editing Wikipedia. I violated Wikipedia policies, started acting in an uncivil manner, insulted people, and started violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view principle. When I was very much deservedly blocked, I started opening numerous sockpuppet accounts to keep violating Wikipedia's policies. After some time, I became regretful, and asked Wikipedia administrators if there was anything I could do to regain the trust of the community and get unblocked. I was advised to wait, at least, 6 months without creating any sockpuppets, and appeal my block then. I have patiently waited more than 6 months, and ask to be unblocked. I realize what I did was violating Wikipedia policies, and I realize that blocking me was a correct decision at the time. I vow to not repeat my offending behavior and ask to be unblocked. I believe I have a lot to contribute once unblocked, and can't wait to get started. Thanks GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2020 (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.

What subjects do you want to edit if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I would like to add some more references to articles dealing with history, improve language in some articles dealing with medicine and so on. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to commit using this account ONLY for using editing? Also is this your main account. Asking per Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry blocks. HeartGlow ^(talk) 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say you have used "numerous sockpuppet accounts". I am aware of some of them, but not enough to describe them as "numerous", so can you please say exactly what accounts you have used? JBW (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: Yes. Definitely. @JBW: Mostly IP addresses that would be unblocked, but I have NOT used an alt account in more than 7 months now, so hard to remember. I am certain that I currently have no active accounts other than this one, and have NOT edited Wikipedia in months. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

When I was editing Wikipedia, I violated several of Wikipedia's policies. First, I started edit warring, then insulting people, and then creating several alt accounts. After recognizing my mistakes, I was advised to wait 6 months and make an unblock request. Since it has been more than 6 months, here is my unblock request: I pledge to not repeat the mistakes that got me banned in the first place. I pledge to NOT insult users and NOT try to troll. I further pledge that this is and will be my only editing account on Wikipedia. I am willing to commit to this account. I further recognize that my initial block was justified and correct. I deserved to be blocked because I was disrupting the purpose of the encyclopedia. IF unblocked, I will move on to editing several articles, primarily about history, correcting grammar, adding sources and perhaps, illustrations.

Accept reason:

Accept per standard offer. User agrees to stick to one account and checkuser confirmed no abuse. only (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed: I'm willing to unblock if a checkuser can confirm that there hasn't been any abuse in the past 6 months as you said. only (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Well, what are we waiting for? Let us run the checkuser. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers are volunteers just like all of us here. One of them will get to this when they can. only (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I don't see any evidence of recent sockpuppetry. – bradv🍁 06:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: I believe the verdict is in. Thank you @Bradv: for your prompt help. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still edit-warring, still insulting other editors diff: "I gave up debating, because it will probably give me brain cancer"; "But I do not actually expect you to understand this. In fact, I would be surprised if your response to this was anything but repeating your misconception about what I already addressed." Quite tasteless. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. only (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: How did I disrupt anything? I did not violate the 3 revert rule --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the blocking admin. Note that WP:EW applies even if you do not violate the 3 revert rule. You should have been on your best behaviour, given your unblock. Instead, you continued insulting other editors and being disruptive. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely. Every edit I EVER made since being unblocked was sourced, not once did I violate the 3 revert rule, and the only thing I said was, given the user's past history, they would misunderstand my arguments. That user, by the way, is someone who makes jokes about masturbation rates in the Vatican, and calls the Bible "madness", both behaviors violate Wikipedia's guidelines for Talk Pages (and, of course, there is no evidence that this user was ever reprimanded). Given this user's history, I merely remarked that I did not think my arguments would be heeded. I did not insult anyone. DEFINITELY no blockable offense was committed. I am being blocked for no good reason, and indefinitely no less. This is mod abuse, and the blocking mod should be stripped of the privilege --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome to request an unblock to have this block reviewed if you feel that this block is abusive and improper. only (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked unjustly per what is stated above. Never violated 3 revert rule, never insulted people.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, using 2nd unblock posted recently. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2020 (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 is a clear case of WP:IDHT. The user has already been told that WP:EW may apply even if they have not violated WP:3RR. Given the long abusive history, I recommend declining the unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note here you claim you "never insulted people" but as part of your unblock, you acknowledged that you did indeed insult people. Are you meaning you didn't insult anyone since you were last unblocked, or are you claiming, as written, that you never insulted anyone here? --Yamla (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I meant, I never insulted anyone since being unblocked. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (sincerely) for the clarification. --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Achar Sva called madness the seven-mania (mania of the number seven). Perhaps you missed the part with Wikipedians are volunteers, but they aren't free (to write what they please). Wikipedians have to sacrifice every pseudoscientific belief on the altar of mainstream science. I mean Wikipedia does not give us a choice here. This isn't a free-speech-based forum. Facebook believes in free speech, Wikipedia doesn't. Wikipedia wants disciplined soldiers or disciplined work force to do a job. Wikipedia is simply a service which renders mainstream science, mainstream scholarship and mainstream press. If your purpose is WP:SOAPboxing for Catholicism, that is incompatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia (neutral meaning in this matter what full professors from Ivy Plus teach for a living). So, no wonder that you land in hot water every time you want to impose Catholic supremacism to Wikipedia articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where I imposed Catholic supremacism on Wikipedia, I also do not know what blockable offense I committed this time. Perhaps you can clarify? @Tgeorgescu:? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, since being unblocked, I have never pushed for "Catholic supremacism". I edit a lot of things related to history of the world and civilization, a good chunk of those happen to be related to Christianity. That is not Catholic supremacism, neither is bringing citations GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, removing the Protestant POV from Perpetual virginity of Mary and stating the dogmatic-conservative Catholic POV in the voice of Wikipedia fits my previous description. I think that the gist is that the Wikipedian is essentially unfree. Here we are not free to write what we please. Those who thrive upon Wikipedia have long understood that they are not here to serve themselves or their own ideological/religious preferences. I could qualify as a pandeist, but I have almost never edited articles pertaining to pandeism. I don't see my role as a Wikipedian as promoting my own personal preferences. I am not here to proselytize or evangelize. I serve the propagation of academic learning, since this is the main purpose of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand what this is supposed to be but an insult. I am not here to evangelize, I am not here to write apologetic articles defending Catholicism. I just think that PV article was poorly written, so I changed some stuff, I did not edit war when it was reverted, and I have not attempted to spread Catholic beliefs using Wikipedia, I edit plenty of articles that have to do with history and ancient texts, Christianity happens to be just a part of what I edit. Catholicism is just 1 part of my identity. I am a compatibilist, borderline Bardolotrous, libertarian, tri-lingual, I do not know why I would want to spread just 1 part of my belief. I regularly edit 100s of articles trying to bring balance.

Also, if I had called someone an atheist apologist for literally no reason, other than their edits that seemed to conflict with Christianity, I would be blocked for disrupting. Why the double standard? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw [1]? What is says there? pov-pushing. It became obvious to three different established editors that you were pushing POVs (at different articles). E.g. you did remove The lack of scriptural support led to it being largely abandoned by most Protestants. And you have stated Historically, various passages of scripture have been cited as supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary. While the obvious truth is there is no mention whatsoever of her post-birth virginity in the whole Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how it's POV pushing to cite sources. Historically, multiple Bible verses have been cited to support PV, eg. Ezekiel 44:2 etc. and that is a historical fact. PV is also accepted by high Church Anglicans, some Lutherans, many Methodists (their founder accepted it too) etc. Most importantly, this is irrelevant to the conversation. It's not a blockable offense or derailing to edit Wikipedia with sources. I did not violate the 3 revert rule at all. Definitely not on the PV article GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: I still have not heard which rule I violated to deserve a perma block? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the block log: disruptive editing in just a few days after your unblock. The disruptive editing included edit warring, personal attacks, polemics, and tendentious editing. only (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: As we have proven already, I did not violate the 3 revert rule, I gave sources for my citations, and did not insult anyone. What did I disrupt, and where was I warned that I was disrupting something, and continued to disrupt it? Also, I do not understand what is "tendentious" about citing sources, unless you want to argue that I did not cite sources or that I was not accurate to the sources GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Also, Wikipedia blocks are supposed to be used ONLY after the user is not listening to warnings... Not only was I obeying warnings, I did not even engage in edit warring (3 revert rule), and took to the talk page once I realized that there were objections to my edits. Wiki edits are not punishment GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Also, calling my edits "tendentious" is assuming bad faith. Bad faith must ONLY be assumed when one is NOT heeding warnings, but as I said, I did not violate 3 revert rule. Once my edits were reverted twice, I took to talk page in all instances. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of the contrary. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing further to add; as Yamla said above, there's a lot of WP:IDHT going on here. Edit warring does not require breaking the 3RR as has been mentioned here. Another admin will eventually examine your unblock request. only (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only:} But which premises do you disagree with? Do you have evidence that I did not heed the warnings on any page at all? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the block: you have been offered a second chance and you spoiled it. You came back advancing the same sort of edits that were rejected before your first indeffing. It was clear to everyone that you did not repent, but you came back to your old habits. A second chance isn't carte blanche to repeat those edits that got you into trouble the first time. Perhaps you don't see your own edits as problematic, but others experience them as such. And not realizing that your edits are problematic for the Wikipedia community is part of the problem, not part of the solution. We don't have a problem with you, personally. We have a problem with the sort of edits that got you into trouble, twice. Unblocking does not mean that you are allowed to push similar edits to those for which you have been indeffed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Do you understand that what you are doing is called assuming bad faith? Wikipedia blocks are NOT supposed to be punishment but prevent the derailing. I have made edits that I believed were fair. When reverted, I did NOT violate the 3 revert rule, but took to the talk page to resolve the differences. I am blocked for no legitimate reason. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have made edits that I believed were fair. is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am being blocked for no good reason at all. In fact, this block violates Wikipedia policies. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe this, this is the end of the line. WP:IDHT and we should revoke your talk page access. I strongly urge you to step back and consider if this is truly, truly the approach you wish to take. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why I was indefinitely blocked, other than some kind of a weird bias and "punishment", which is against wiki rules GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. I've removed talk page access as you continue to harangue and ignore everything that has been told to you regarding this block. You may request an unblock at UTRS, however you NEED to address the reasons for your block and not use the line of "This isn't fair". RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Since being unblocked, not once did I violate the 3 revert rule, always took to the talk page to explain any problems I had, and heeded every warning I was given. I was blocked despite all this, and remain unable to edit wikipedia indefinitely. I believe this is completely unjust, and needs looking into.

Decline reason:

You continued to behave in the exact same manner that led to your previous block. You violated the terms of that unlobck request and with this request for unblocking you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend no one is telling you anything. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (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 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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Your draft article, User:GoogleMeNowPlease/sandbox

Hello, GoogleMeNowPlease. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 33523

This user has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #35523. The request is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 35911

UTRS appeal #35911 is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COmmunity ban

Noting user is de facto WP:CBANned. This latest bit of disruption via a sock is just the icing on the cake. User will need to talk long and hard to convince anyone to unblock them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]