User talk:Squiggly666

Welcome

Hello Squiggly666 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Laws regarding child sexual abuse, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history at White Ribbon Campaign shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for edit warring and blatant POV pushing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Squiggly666 reported by User:Brustopher (Result: ). Thank you. Brustopher (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at White Ribbon Campaign, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at White Ribbon Campaign. Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence length comparisons

re special:diff/737673423 I understand the nugget of truth you are trying to communicate but you are going about it the wrong way.

You need to find major sources saying things which support your findings. These popular sources are the only ones accepted as "reliable".

Something like "women who rape children almost always spend less time in jail" is too specific. You are not likely to find a major source saying this.

Try looking more broadly. Rather than a direct mathematical statement, at first try to re-locate a major source who is simply supporting your first point: "media bias towards some lenient sentences but not others". Also instead of 'demonstrates' (asserting a truth) report on it in a less agreeable fashion, like "claims of media bias". That way you are simply observing that people report it but not that they are necessarily right. Ranze (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Age

Regarding this edit, please make sure any additions you make to an article be accompanied by a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. clpo13_(talk) 21:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't mark edits as minor unless they're simple typographical or grammar fixes. Edits that add or remove information should not be marked as minor. clpo13_(talk) 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Age. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. clpo13_(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rape‎ , without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

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 Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/FAQ, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in disruptive editinng. I am just starting to fix the grosteseque left-wing bias that violates Wikipedias NPOV rules. Squiggly666 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Antifeminism. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You said above that you're not looking to disrupt Wikipedia. Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism is a personal attack, and one that is fundamentally disruptive to collaborative work. Please stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not a personal attack, I was described factual events of what they did. Violating NPOV is against Wikipedias rules. Wikipedia claims it has no left-wing bias, let's see if that is true or nor. Squiggly666 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antifeminism

Your recent editing history at Antifeminism 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. If you're going to edit war, maybe don't do that in an article to which discretionary sanctions apply. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in an edit war, the left-wing vandal that keeps trying to violate NPOV is. Squiggly666 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Wikepedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit right? Squiggly666 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. As I said elsewhere, a certain level of competence is required. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian beat me to an indef by a few seconds. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Removing left-wing NPOV violations is constructive and helps makes wikipedia better. The person who blocked me should be banned for life for pushing left-wing POV content that violates NPOV policy.}} Squiggly666 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2022 (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).

Squiggly666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Removing left-wing NPOV violations is constructive and helps makes wikipedia better. The person who blocked me should be banned for life for pushing left-wing POV content that violates NPOV policy.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is clearly better off with you blocked. If Wikipedia is too left-wing for you, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and go somewhere where you will be told what you want to hear. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2022 (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.

Erm, I don't believe that restoring stable, sourced content that is presented in a neutral and BALANCEd manner is a policy violation, much less vandalism as stated above. As I pointed out earlier, competence is required to participate in a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A subsection that seeks to "explain" views is a clear NPOV violation, as it takes a position that views must be invalid (hence need to be explained). The mere existence of a source does not justify structuring and presenting an article in a particular way that violates NPOV. It is in no way balanced. As mentioed, very large sections of the community simply do not agree with feminist ideology. Conservatives, Christians, and many non-western cultures.

Clearly maintaining NPOV content, failing to see how it violates NPOV and supporting its re-introduction does not demostrate "competence". Squiggly666 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Squiggly666 apparently does not understand that arriving at NPOV text depends on assessing the balance of reliable sources, and not on the opinions of editors. Perhaps it is time to revoke Talk Page access? Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously just confirmed what conservatives allege, and wikipedia apparently denies. If that's the case, why not make it official? Why not edit this page and say that yes, wikipedia does have ideological bias? Ideological bias on Wikipedia. If so, I will go away.

"In 2021, Wikipedia denied accusations of having a particular political bias, with a spokesperson for the encyclopedia saying that third-party studies have shown that its editors come from a variety of ideological viewpoints and that "As more people engage in the editing process on Wikipedia, the more neutral articles tend to become"." Squiggly666 (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is it claimed that Wikipedia is free of bias. That is an impossibility, as everyone has biases. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and determine what they think. No one should trust Wikipedia blindly, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Your editing goes beyond mere bias into the realm of disruption and incivility. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]