User talk:Samir-Tabarrok

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please do not remove the {{copyvio/core}} template from articles. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at a temporary subpage linked from the article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators and/or removers of the copyright notice templates will be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will block you if you add that again. Doug Weller talk 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to have upset you, but you made a mistake. what I added was just a link. Samir-Tabarrok (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you added copyvio. Doug Weller talk 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're wrong again sir. You need to control your emotions when it comes to Kirkpatrick. It's ok he can handle criticism. Samir-Tabarrok (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Sean M. Kirkpatrick: Revision 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; read about 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. Doug Weller talk 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

again another false accusation. UFO skeptic crowd just can't help fanatically defending their heroes apparently. Samir-Tabarrok (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

false idols for ultra-skeptical fanatics... Samir-Tabarrok (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 22:27, 1 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

user doug weller falsely accused me of a bunch of things and then goes ahead and blocks me. I was merely responding to his edits. I feel like all editors need to be able to take criticm without lashing out and blocking others which seems like unnecessary abuse of power.. Samir-Tabarrok (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:20, 1 February 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.