User talk:Macquan1

Welcome!

Hello, Macquan1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I blocked? I didn't commit any kind of abuse.

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).

Macquan1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why was I blocked to prevent abuse? I didn't commit any kind of abuse. This is outrageous; why are administrators abusing their administrative rights to block people who haven't committed any abuse?

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. Yamla (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2019 (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.

A conservative on here should unblock my account before one of these stupid unemployed liberals blocks it again

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).

Macquan1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block of my account was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and even if it was, the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and I will make useful contributions instead.

Decline reason:

See below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (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 understand what I was blocked for" -- Tell us about it. What did you do?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you ask "What did you do?"

I simply stated this on the talk page for user https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Yamla:

Why did you state this threat on Mark Dice's talk page?

Hello,

Why did you put this threat on the Mark Dice talk page?

"prompted by recruitment from the subject's YouTube prompting may result in a prompt block from editing"?

Just so you know, no one is "prompted by recruitment" to come here.

If people see something that is obviously unfair, they are going to call those out for their unfair behavior.

People are allowed to freely discuss topics in a dialogue without being threatened because of your status as an administrator in which it appears you are unfairly going to take advantage of in order to silence speech that you personally don't agree with, but which doesn't violate any sort of rules or policies or terms of service or even guidelines. And I simply stated this on the talk page for user https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ian.thomson

Why isn't TonyBallioni being blocked for incorrectly calling The Washington Times "a fringe publication" or "a fringe source"?

I just read the talk page of TonyBallioni where he incorrectly calls The Washington Times "a fringe publication" and "a fringe source".

How can he just subjectively claim that an extremely professional and very major and famous news network in the United States of America is "a fringe publication" or "a fringe source"?

That is extremely inappropriate and obviously shows that he is biased because of that.

He cannot just write-off an entire major news network in this nation as not being a reliable source, just because he incorrectly believes that to be so in his incorrect way of thinking.

And then I was improperly blocked by you for:

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.

Therefore, you are the person who needs to be explaining to me why you blocked me improperly.

Why did you block my page improperly?

Are you another unemployed, deep in student loan debt, liberal arts major, butthurt liberal incapable of starting a business and who just can't get over the fact that Donald Trump legitimately won the US presidential election and that you are a crybaby because you liberals are losing the public narrative to proper American conservative thought and therefore you have to hide on Wikipedia all day to try to unfairly shape thoughts and opinions into a liberal bias which is an utter failure?Macquan1 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why no. You got things really wrong...again. And for today's consolation prize we have revoked your talk page access. Way to go winner.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this user is confused. They've never edited my user page (or my user talk page), at least not with this account. They are probably thinking of a different user. --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

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.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Macquan1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23963 was submitted on Feb 15, 2019 18:48:13. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

Macquan1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23964 was submitted on Feb 15, 2019 21:14:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #71700

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting further confusion at UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]