User talk:The Cat 2020

Your submission at Articles for creation: Avyar (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Amkgp were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Avyar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Avyar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Amkgp ✉ 04:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, The Cat 2020! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Amkgp ✉ 04:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Avyar (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Avyar may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Avyar (May 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by LittlePuppers were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Avyar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Avyar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LittlePuppers (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Avyar

A tag has been placed on Draft:Avyar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The subject of this draft already has an article at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Avvaiyar . Besides, in its current shape, this draft can not be accepted without a major rewrite.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 09:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The so-called contest the nomination button is nonexistent and I am unable to contest your proposition to delete my legitimate page or draft. The level of incompetence shown by you is clearly visible to anybody. You have failed to list a single reason that could possible qualify my article for a deletion. You should not exercise your personal opinion here on Wikipedia. This is not your personal business or company. You should not reject a properly written article with all the works properly cited. You should not engage in a scheme to quickly remove any content that is legitimate and properly written in accordance to all the rules. You should know a thing or two about mythology when you are trying to police the content written on this particular subject. The Cat 2020 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't contest the nomination because the nomination was already denied by an administrator. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first reasonable action so far. My topic is very important, especially in the World of today when the moral has been pushed to the lowest level ever. It would have been great if the administrator can have a minute to read the article himself and make a final decision since the rejection without a reason is not acceptable. The Cat 2020 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Avyar (June 2)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission. If this draft is resubmitted, or an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection, a topic-ban or a partial block may be requested against the submitting editor, and the draft may be nominated for deletion.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

This draft has been resubmitted without any visible improvement, or with very little improvement. If you do not know what is needed to improve this draft, please ask for advice rather than making minor improvements and resubmitting.

You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the declining reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.)

If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement again, it is likely to be rejected, and it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested against further submission by the responsible editor.

The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability. See also Avvaiyar.

Do not resubmit this draft without discussion. You may discuss at the Teahouse or at the talk page of this draft.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Avyar has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Avyar. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Robert McClenon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. If you don't know the difference between a user page and a user talk page, perhaps you should ask for advice at the Teahouse before posting to either a user page or a user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Moonythedwarf. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf, The comment was written in a polite and respectful manner which can be proven by looking at the comment itself. In the future please refrain from censoring my comments and the information you might not like. Censorship should not be exercised on Wikipedia, especially on a talk page. Censorship is a poor friend in a fight with facts. Please remember that as well as my polite reply to you. The Cat 2020 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Robert McClenon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you concentrate on improving the existing article Avvaiyar. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong, I am not attacking anyone here and this is yet another false allegation. Please refrain from the false accusation in the future. I have the right to respond to any statements provided. If someone makes a false accusation then anyone has the right to defend his or her good name and reputation. I repeat, I am not attacking anyone and you can't make such a false allegation which is not supported by the facts. Moreover, it's you who threatened me with the blocking from editing. This threat is unacceptable in a free society and an attempt to create such an environment is not healthy for the well-being of Wikipedia. Please kindly rethink what you said. The Cat 2020 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Read it. You might learn something. SK2242 (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

SK2242, Thank you for the link. The information should apply to everyone in equal proportions. Please kindly read the comments that were addressed to me and my replies and then you can forward the same link to the other parties. I exercised patience and was very polite even after the censorship was applied to me by means of removal of my legitimate comment addressed to the other user. Then I was threatened with the blocking from editing by another user as you can clearly see. I again exercised patience and politely explained my position.The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Avyar has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Avyar. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indenting comments on a talk page

Please use proper formatting for your comments:

1.When replying to another editor's comment, use colons {:} to indent your reply. Each colon will add a tab to the reply. If you are respoding to a comment with 2 colons, put 3 colons in front of yours. 2.Put your response directly underneath the comment you're replying to. If someone has already replied, indent yout reply one more tab than that response.

Examples:

Comment 1
:Comment 2 (1 colons)
::Comment 3 (2 colons)
:::Comment 4 (3 colons)

reeults in:

Comment 1 (no colons)

Comment 2 (1 colons)

Comment 3 (2 colons)

Comment 4 (3 colons)

Comment 1 (no colons)
:Comment 2 (1 colon)
:::Comment 4 (3 colons)
::Comment 3 (2 colons)

Comment 1 (no colons)

Comment 2 (1 colon)

Comment 4 (3 colons)

Comment 3 (2 colons)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 Block for disruptive editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for tendentious editing (ANI consensus). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 11:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

The Cat 2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have visited the page you listed and the definition states, "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." The accusation thrown at me in "tendentious editing" doesn't list any evidence whatsoever. My legitimate draft was removed from the system several days ago. That was the result of so-called "proposition 1" made by one editor User:TimothyBlue. The other two individuals "supported" this "proposition 1" and the fourth person User:JzG removed my article's draft from the system. All the information is recorded here [[1]]. The process didn't end there and immediately the "proposition 2" was made by User:Hasteur who called for a possible indefinite block in order to prevent any future misconduct which never happened. I expressed my reasoning on that thread and calmly listed all the supportive facts. Several users continued to make factually incorrect statements towards me. I asked those individuals to stop doing that. They also used such statements as "bad behavior", "behavioral issues", "bad mouth", "combative behavior" and other highly insulting comments aimed at me. That's where the real problem lies. False accusation aimed at me and I professionally replied to each message containing such accusations. Now I am accused of "tendentious editing" but no proof is provided. Where did I do that? In my replies to other editors? Did I edit something? So, this is yet another factually incorrect statement and unfounded accusation. You should start looking into the facts I have provided. If you don't like my replies, that's OK but do not accuse me of "tendentious editing" because this is a strong and groundless accusation. You should not use free Wikipedia in order to silence the opinions you may not like by throwing empty accusations and issuing blocks for the virtual offenses that never took place. I was censored here on Wikipedia for expressing my honest opinion - here is the fact [2]. Now you have issued a block for the offense which never happened which is another form of censorship of an opinion you didn't like. This is an unacceptable behavior. The tools were not provided to you so you can use them as you wish. You do not own Wikipedia and you should not set your own rules here. You should not silence opinions you do not or may not like. You do not provide false accusations and you do not issue a block for something that never happened. The Cat 2020 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions" absolutely applies in this case, and there was strong support from the community for the block. If you intend to use the appeal system as a platform to continue your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT bludgeoning of discussions, your access to this talk page will be revoked as well. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Opining because I have been called out in the rambling appeal that appears to drastically missed the goals set out in WP:GAB. Furthermore I did not call for an indefinite block. I was simply trying to get a community endorsed consensus that should you continue to be disruptive in the future you may be blocked after having been warned offically by the community. I support @Ponyo:'s declination of unblock. Hasteur (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hasteur, I think you have been very fair and lenient in this issue. The proposal for merely an official sanction was after The Cat 2020's behaviour was already at a level where a block would be justified, so you were doing them a favour. It is sad to see that as thanks for this, The Cat 2020 just threw it back in your face. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Cat 2020: What you should do at this point is to accept the community's decision regarding your conduct and deleted draft and stop arguing. Accept it and move on. I fear your intention is to continue arguing over this once your block is over which will only lead to longer blocks. Again the best course for you to take is to stop arguing, accept the community's decision, and move on.   // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo, The block was unfairly applied to me with the following reason: "tendentious editing". I clearly proved my point in my previous appeal. Now you cited a line from the page about "disruptive editing" which doesn't apply to me in any way. This was not the reason stated by the initial blocker. So first it was supposedly "tendentious editing" and now a citation from the page about "disruptive editing" was used to justify the initial decision. How convenient. It has clearly became a witch-hunt since Ponyo used randomly selected phrase in order to decline my legitimate and supported by the facts appeal. Everyone can now see that censorship can be achieved by any means against me. Any unfounded reason can be listed or any citation can be used to justify the blocking. Absolutely no way to express a reasonable opinion since a more aggressive steps are applied after you try to express it or list the facts with an inconvenient truth. The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, The more you argue, the less your chances of being unblocked are. Per Timothy's advice, you should simply stop. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hasteur, You didn't call for it? Let me remind you your own words, "Further edits in the same conduct/tone could be cause for sanctions to address disruptive editing up to and including indefinite blocks and community bans." If you didn't want to get me blocked after my initial draft was removed, then you would have never started your "proposal 2" which was planned and used to block me. I am stating the facts as they are. I can clearly see that the truth is not welcomed here and the truth stated is met with an aggressive comments and blocking. Some people just need to learn how to accept the truth however inconvenient it is. There no way to have an honest dialog without allowing both sides to express themselves. The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, the thing is, we are building an encyclopedia here. And as a user, you basically have not contributed anything to Wikipedia other than a very large number of complaints on talk pages. If you would stop complaining that every one is out to get you and instead plan some contributions to the encyclopedia, you would have very few problems. Please take this advice to heart, rather than responding with another long diatribe about how you're being persecuted. the people who have been responding to you over the past week or so have made cumulatively hundreds of thousands of contributions to the encyclopedia. Stop complaining and make yours. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

moonythedwarf, "Arguing" and expressing an honest opinion based on facts and truth are two different things so please stop intermixing them. There was no reason to block me and I clearly proved it in my appeal. Once I proved this the other reviewer simply used citation from "disruptive behavior" page and justified the actions' of the first one. How do you call it in normal circumstances? You are writing, "The more you argue, the less your chances of being unblocked are". You are on my talk page. Am I not allowed to express myself here? Am I not allowed to state the facts in my defense? You are basically saying that the more I express myself and state facts, the more my chances would be to continue to be blocked. You are not afraid to say that even though you are threatening me for exercising my God given right to express myself. Who do you think you are? Who gave you the right to threaten other people for just expressing themselves and stating facts in a honest, professional and well-grounded manner? Think about it because you are clearly overstepping the line here. By line I mean the borderline between the common sense and illogicality. The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Am I allowed to contribute? No. I am blocked under the reason which doesn't apply to me. When I stated the facts in my appeal another reason was created out of the thin air. That's is the problem and I do not wish to discuss anything else. Please kindly focus on the reason stated to justify my blocking, then read my appeal and after that read another reason provided. That's exactly what needs to be discussed here. Finally, the threats of continuous blocking are continuing to arrive and you need to address that as well. Is this a friendly behavior toward me? The Cat 2020 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My advice is this: 60 hours isn't a long time. Use it to cool down a little and do some other real-life stuff that you enjoy doing. Don't think about Wikipedia at all, just chill out. When the 60 hours is up, don't pick up the same discussion. Start research for a new article (first checking that we don't already have one on that subject) or pick out an article to which you think you can contribute productively and edit there. If conflicts with other editors arise, try to listen to their complaints and see if you can't think of a compromise which will satisfy both of you. If you proceed in this manner, before you know it you'll be an old-timer, and this dispute will be ancient history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, You are missing major points. I was blocked solely for expressing my own opinion in an open conversation.I was block for "tendentious editing" while I wasn't even editing. No evidence was provided to support the reasoning behind the blocking. I clearly stated that in my legitimate request for the unblock. When those facts came to light the narrative was changed to "disruptive editing" which also didn't apply to me and it wasn't even the reason stated in the initial decision to block me. That's the whole story. I was unfairly blocked for voicing my opinion in an open conversation. Now I am being threatened with continuous blocking and you do not address this unacceptable behavior from the individual(s) making those statements. You do not tell them to cool down and you do not tell them to leave me alone. The unfair block with absolutely no facts behind the decision is an unacceptable outcome and can't be expected to be accepted without the reasonable discussion. The persons discussing this decision should pay more attention to the facts provided by me and they should provide the evidence of any "tendentious editing" if they are to support the blocking. Just show me the evidence that granted such a decision. If those individuals are unable to do that then the block should be removed. One last thing. I would not be surprised if after being unable to produce any evidence one of the individuals who supported my continuous blocking would come up with the "proposition 3" and state that indefinite block should be used against me. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you entirely missed the point of my advice: the more you obsess about this, the worse it is for you -- that is, if you're actually interested in having a Wikipedia career. If you take my advice, you have a pretty good chance of putting this incident behind you. If you continue to post as above, you'll be indef blocked before the year is out, and probably sooner. The choice is yours. This concludes my portion of the program. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have a bit of a habit of replying late, so here is my response to your pinging of me on ANI. This is part of the problem of text based communication, tone is not communicable. My quoting of the various diffs that were presented in the ANI, and my view of them, is precisely what multiple editors have agreed on. You will invariably have a different opinion on what you're presenting to everyone else. Communication on wikipedia is absolutely one of those "put yourselves in the other person's shoes" environments where one must constantly ask themselves whether their message can be misconstrued as an attack or whether it comes across as overly aggressive. Some editors will not care for that, and they get blocked. And you can see that this is precisely what has resulted. Any number of uninvolved editors have shown up on the discussion and literally every editor that has reviewed your talk page edits has agreed that they present as aggressive and combative. I have no dog in the fight since any time I expend on wikipedia, which has been precious little lately for various real life reasons, it's time that I freely give. I can understand that when you see an article that you spent a great deal of time on get rejected or sent off toe AFD and deleted, it's quite upsetting and annoying even. But this is how Wikipedia works and it's something that every editor who has spent any length of time here comes to accept. Blackmane (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, It seems that you do not wish to look into the facts listed in my previous reply to you. I am not "obsessed" as you have incorrectly stated. I was blocked under the false pretense and that is exactly what you should be discussing. I am not discussing my draft that was deleted from the system.I am discussing and voicing my opposition to the false narrative that was behind the blocking of me. I can not accept false accusations since I am not guilty of "tendentious editing" which I clearly stated and proved. I was silenced for 60 hours for expressing my opinion even though the discussion in the incident's page was closed and I was not editing anything. That's the whole point and I am offering truth to support my position and words. This inconvenient truth is not accepted since it's ignored. The Cat 2020 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, do you consider your indefinite block on the Russian Wikipedia also to be under false pretences? And that it would be inaccurate to describe your sole contribution to the French Wikipedia as WP:REFSPAM? 1292simon (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1292simon, Yes, I was unlawfully blocked there under false allegations of "spamming" when I added an important information about the investigation into Aleksey Pushkov's fake in one of his TV shows. I added the link for the video where this fake was uncovered. My information was conveniently removed under the false allegations of "spamming". Anyone can open the video and see that this is a very important information and it was added in accordance to all the rules. We are seeing a total lawlessness in a situation like this. An administrator protected the politician when an inconvenient truth was uncovered and added under the "critics" section of his page. This administrator lied and accused me of "spamming" and for this the indefinite block was imposed. Everyone can clearly see the censorship involved while the administrator is allowed to lie and block for no offense. That's the pathetic reality. The truth is being eliminated and not allowed to be seen while it's against the law to censor such material. It is also against Wikipedia's rules to use the administrator's status to block others when there was no offense. The Cat 2020 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please tell us what laws are being broken that you were blocked from a private website. You make several accusations above of laws being broken; unlawfully blocked and unlawfully censored. These are serious accusations. Please let us know what laws are being broken so that these matters can be looked into. Note Wikipedia is a private website that is entitled to determine who can and cannot make use of it, and for what purposes within the bounds of legality in the United States where the servers are based. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, What happened to the definition "free Wikipedia"? You are now talking about "private website" which "is entitled to determine who can and cannot make use of it". Please provided those rules in writing because Wikipedia is advertised as "free Wikipedia" but you are saying the opposite. "Please let us know what laws are being broken so that matters can be looked into." Firstly, you need to start addressing serious issues when the person, me for example, is blocked under the false pretense. This is equivalent to the censorship and you can read President's Trump Executive Order on preventing online censorship. Secondly, the user above mentioned the Russian Wikipedia and my indefinite block under the false pretense. My legitimate information was marked as "spamming" which is a lie since I provided all the facts about the information being added. Such actions are in violation of the Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The administrator can't use his power to silence the information about a politician which he deemed to be unacceptable but which in reality is very important and the citizens should be allowed to see it. Thirdly, I was blocked on English Wikipedia simply for expressing my opinion and the reasons "disruptive editing" and "tendentious editing" didn't apply to me. So I was censored was expressing my own opinion in response to the messages received on my talk page. Do you find this acceptable? The Cat 2020 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed free to use, but like everywhere and everything else it has rules. With regards to the Wikipedia rules, every single time you edit right above the "Publish changes" button there is a link to the Terms of Use that you are agreeing to. The Terms of Use are also linked at the bottom of every single page on the site. One can only presume you've read them since you agreed to them by clicking the Publish changes button. Russian Federation laws have no sway on Wikipedia, it's not based in Russia last time I checked. Note that that is the Russian language Wikipedia, not the Russian Federation Wikipedia.

As for your edits, I've looked over them and your talk comments. People genuinely attempted to assist you with your article, pointing out why it didn't work within Wikipedia's policies and giving you advice on how to correct it. I've read through your ANI comments as well. I would come to the conclusion that the block was entirely community endorsed and since you were ignoring the advice of everyone, and criticising almost everything experienced editors have said with claims that you're writing is correct and allowed, that your edits are indeed "behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions". Thus a block for WP:Tendentious editing was indeed justified and not under false pretenses. In my honest opinion, I'm surprised it took as long as it did.

For the "spamming" edits, yes linking a massive collection of external links that translated a Tamil poet's work into Russian (why Russian?) would indeed fall afoul of multiple items of Wikipedia's External Links policy. Plus this is the English language Wikipedia not the Russian language Wikipedia. If the original works were in Russian there would be some justification for linking to a page that links to them all (not every individual work), but since it's not then they were completely inappropriate here.

My advice to you is to listen to the advice and comments of experienced editors, and follow their guidance, and Wikipedia policies, for your edits in the future once your block term has expired. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, You should research into the Russian laws before you say something because Youtube's videos are routinely blocked there after an appropriate court order is granted or it's requested by the Roskomnadzor. There are thing that you either don't know or do not wish to tell. In terms of Wikipedia you recently wrote, "Note Wikipedia is a private website that is entitled to determine who can and cannot make use of it, and for what purposes within the bounds of legality in the United States where the servers are based." Under tax law, a section 501(c)(3) organization is initially considered a private foundation, or a private nonprofit organization, unless it requests, and is authorized to be, a public charity. Please read the following letter [[3]] and you will see that the talk should be about a public charity. That's number one. Number two. I was blocked on Russian Wikipedia under the false pretense of "Spamming" for adding one link to the Youtube video-investigation and the two lines of description in "critics" section of Aleksey Pushkov. This can be verified by looking into the history of edits. This has nothing to do with what you have listed. Number three. I am entitled to link the appropriate and relevant material to any already created page. Had you looked closer you would have seen that the English language links were provided for Avyar along with the links in Russian. Those links are relevant to the information provided in the article. Some English-speaking users might want to know how those moral sentences are translated into the Russian. So your comment is irrelevant in this case. The Cat 2020 (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the Russian language Wikipedia and Russian laws have no bearing here. On the other topics, we'll have to agree to disagree. I wish you all the best in your future editing career which, since you're ignoring Wikipedia's policies and the advice of experienced editors, is likely to be short. Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, All the facts were stated and it's not my problem that you are ignoring them. The indefinite block was the main idea behind all this show and it was illegally applied to me today. I expressed my legitimate and well founded opinion on my talk page. The person who wrongfully blocked me for 6o hours came back today and applied an indefinite block under the false pretense. I have been censored and the actions of the individual who blocked are saying for themselves. He wanted to block me indefinitely from the very beginning and he did so. It's like a circus in the 21st century on supposedly free Wikipedia where any administrator can lie and block for the opinion he doesn't like. Facts are showing the abusive behavior from certain individuals who applied blocking as a way of silencing their opponents in a conversation. I am allowed to express my own and well founded opinion on my own Talk page especially when I was replying to the factually incorrect statements made by certain individuals. There is a severe censorship on Wikipedia and the actions of certain individuals with blocking power have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. The Cat 2020 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive and tendentious editing while blocked. Rather than take advantage of the boon that this rather lenient short block represented, you have continued to bludgeon your talk page while at the same time remaining completely oblivious to multiple suggestions on how you should to improve your conduct. I would need some pretty strong assurances of your intent to dramatically improve if you were to be unblocked.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

The Cat 2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked under the false and illegitimate pretense of "tendentious editing" merely for expressing my well founded opinion based solely on facts and truth. When I provided the evidence that the false accusation of "tendentious editing" doesn't even apply to me the individual who blocked me El_C changed the narrative and added another false accusation of "disruptive behavior". He did it after he was confronted with the facts. Several other users continued to threaten me on my own talk page with more harsh actions. I had to continue to reply to the false accusations addressed at me which I had the right and obligation to do. I have a God given right to express myself by providing facts to support my opinion especially when the factually incorrect and false statements are made against me. The same individual El_C once again exercised his unprecedented power and blocked me indefinitely. Once again the false accusation was made to support this illegitimate, pathetic and biased decision. I was censored for expressing my own opinion on my own talk page. I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to do so in the 21 st century. President Trump's Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship [4]] is being completely ignored and thrown away by the individual with the unlimited blocking powers and the ability to state bogus and factually incorrect allegations based on a thin air. The individual El_C as of today didn't provide a single fact to support the blocking. The unprecedented power of blocking anyone for expressing opinions that might not be liked sets a dangerous precedent on Wikipedia which is advertised as being "free" for anyone. At the end I am blocked for the "offense" I never committed. The person lied, provided factually incorrect "reasoning" and blocked me. One individual here claimed that the US laws are applied to Wikipedia. Let me ask you then the following question: what happened to the Constitutional right of anyone to express his or her own opinion? If you apply the US laws to Wikipedia then you shouldn't censor individuals for expressing themselves and voicing their own opinions on Wikipedia. If the illegitimate, biased and unfounded allegation and block are allowed to stay against me then the dangerous trend of censoring others would be considered as being established, rooted and confirmed. No other logical conclusion can be made from the facts already provided by me. The Cat 2020 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are confused. You have no freedom of speech here. See WP:FREESPEECH. Wikipedia is free to an almost unprecedented level. You are free to download the entire contents and source code of Wikipedia and start your own site where you can express whatever opinion you want. But here, you are expected to follow our policies and guidelines and have no guarantee of the ability to express your opinion. For that matter, US law doesn't allow you to do that on any other private website, either. You misunderstand your constitutional rights. I mean that sincerely; your constitutional rights are critically important and I strongly encourage you to read up on what they allow and what they don't. If you wish to make any further unblock request, please read WP:GAB before doing so, because another unblock request like this will certainly be your last. Yamla (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

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.

 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)