User talk:SkyKingRSA

September 2023

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you recently removed content from Solidarity (South African trade union) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an appropriate explanation as to why it has been removed. Much more information than majority of Wikipedia users give.

The information removed was an opinion and not-factual. The article used as a reference is a highly biased article that clearly slanders the organization discussed in the article.

By restoring the content you have added a opinion to the context of the article. This is against Wikipedia policy. Please dont add non-factual information.

If it was a mistake, its not a problem. I have removed it again. 94.203.228.9 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Apartheid. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information added is factual and creates a better understanding of post-apartheid South Africa. Perhaps study in or visit South Africa to understand the relevance. Do not remove content when you don't verify if it is factual, this breaches Wikipedias policy and devalues the article. Find attached link to the statistic that I used.

ttps://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=jwww.statista.com/statistics/264656/countries-with-the-highest-unemployment-rate/&ved=2ahUKEwjzsduY0JiBAxW7UqQEHY2EAkgQFnoECAoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0t_R_YbPx3-dsNMOycZP2M

www.statista.com/statistics/264656/countries-with-the-highest-unemployment-rate/&ved=2ahUKEwjzsduY0JiBAxW7UqQEHY2EAkgQFnoECAoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0t_R_YbPx3-dsNMOycZP2M 94.203.228.9 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2023 (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 Solidarity (South African trade union), you may be blocked from editing. Added change note. The support fact is relevant and should not be removed. The leading descriptors are likely open to removal as PoV. CMacMillan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you encouraging and reinstating opinions into articles. If you feel it is factual, then state the source of the information or post a link. I don't see how you are an expert on this or any other Trade union in Africa. We should keep to our areas of expertise. 94.203.228.9 (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Area of expertise? Are you claiming original research or some sort of scholarship in this area? In which case, your edits are even more inappropriate. The first item is not an opinion. Your edits do seem to be. CMacMillan (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 7 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm surprised how quickly I got blocked from editing on Wikipedia. I knew there were Nazi style admins on here from the thousands of Reddit and Quora forums, but this was unexpected. I edited a post that contains 3 statements or opinions that are not factual. I gave a reason for this and the admin that blocked me stated that 2/3 of my edits were correct, however that I "smell of far right apologetics". Is this what Wiki has come to? Left minded admins playing dictator and blocking people as they see fit. I ask to be unblocked so that I may edit articles that stray from fact and contain opinions or feelings on historic events. I will not edit a post that is factual or backed up by a verifiable reference. Misinformation has no place in this world.

Decline reason:

I stopped reading at "Nazi style admins". Requests with personal attacks are not considered. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (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.

Attacking the people you want to unblock you is not a good strategy. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]