User talk:Setthingsright42

November 2023

Please don't change any other editor's post to a talk page so as to make it appear that they wrote something which they did not in fact write. JBW (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Mika Tosca. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Mika Tosca while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Setthingsright42! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently “Haopy editing” is not an option, because I have been blocked from doing so by someone who doesn’t like the fact that I want to ensure that a highly relevant incident is covered at all in Mika Tosca’s web page… Setthingsright42 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

Hi Setthingsright42, your recent talk page contributions seem to be incompatible with the "500 edits" restriction mentioned in the blue box above. See WP:A/I/PIA and WP:ARBECR for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the method of edits of my own entry. I apologize for not having been logged in when I made one (or more?) of my edits. That was not my intention.

re good faith, do not tell me what I may or may not have assumed, as you cannot read my mind. I have, however, repeatedly pointed out that WHATEVER the intentions of those involved in not allowing any posting on the incident in question to be on the page, the RESULT of these actions is antiSemitic censorship. THAT is the issue here. And each day that goes by with ZERO mention of this incident on the page is yet another day of antisemitic censorship, again regardless of the intentions of those responsible for the indefensible censorship. Setthingsright42 (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are very close to, at best, a topic ban, and at worse a WP:NOTHERE block. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently I was blocked almost immediately after, or perhaps before, your note.

what other recourse do I have to get an obvious well sourced true incident to be mentioned on a web page, given that administrators are clearly doing ongoing censorship of the page by not merely objecting to the exact wording someone might use to describe the incident, but preventing ANY mention of the incident to be on the page at all? Setthingsright42 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just administrators, it's editors; administrators are not the arbiters of content. No one is engaging in censorship- curation of content according to our policies is not censorship. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a place to list all the misdeeds a person allegedly engages in. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, upon further consideration and investigation after my message, decide that a block was necessary to prevent further disruption. The reviewing admin is free to take that into account during their review. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you were blocked for continuing to edit in the same way after 331dot's message and the others above. It seems reasonable to assume that you didn't see 331dot's message before publishing the latest comment at Talk:Mika Tosca, but I don't think another warning was necessary before placing a block.

The WP:A/I/PIA / WP:ARBECR / "500 edits" restriction generally also applies to this page here. The block, the behavior that led to it, and the blocking action, can of course be discussed here (WP:BANEXEMPT). Simply continuing the discussion from Talk:Mika Tosca, for example by purely stating your opinion about what the article should say and why not doing so is censorship in your view, is problematic though. You are blocked from editing, you are practically currently banned from the topic "Arab-Israeli conflict" because you don't meet the 500 edits requirement, and your unblock request should explain which legitimate editing you'd like to perform if unblocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Syntax fixed, heading replaced ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2023 (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).

Setthingsright42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want nothing more than to “build an encyclopedia” which contains relevant information! But the administrators are using arbitrary, ever changing reasons to prevent anyone from adding multi sourced highly relevant information (in this case that Tosca made an antiSemitic post on Wikipedia saying Israelis are pigs). The response of her own employer is posted on their site. The incident occurrred, and it is not a legit web page with no mention of the event on it. since I am not allowed to edit the page (and since ANY information on the incident is essentially being Perna-blocked from the page), I have no other recourse than to post on the talk page. But now I have been blocked for doing that. Setthingsright42 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock reason shows no level of understanding and aknowledgement for disruptive editing that led to the block, but rather throws the blame onto everyone else. Declined. Daniel (talk) 08:24, 8 January 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.