User talk:Unselfstudier

username

Your username appears to be attacking another user, is that the case? nableezy - 14:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Unselfstudier (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well anyway, here you go:

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

nableezy - 14:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rose City Antifa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CIreland (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, as you did at Rose City Antifa, you may be blocked from editing. DSQ (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. DSQ (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. RolandR (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

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.

Bishonen | tålk 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiring minds want to know who you were referring to at User talk:CIreland

When you wrote "The othe rposters put objections by aPOV supporter of Antifa." Your poor grammar makes it hard to understand. Do you mean that User:Bobfrombrockley and I were putting forward objections from a supporter of Antifa? Or? And Fox News is anything but the leading news organisation. In fact we generally avoid using it, especially for politics, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC

Help from an administrator without an agenda

I am being attacked for putting edits on the talk page and one correction on Rose City Antifa which I backed up by facts. These edits have all been back up by facts.

The edits need to be backed up by reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News, the Jerusalem Post are not? The leading U.S News network and the newspaper of record for Israel.Unselfstudier (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your reliable source that Rose City Antifa are fascist? ... discospinster _talk 22:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They attacked Ngo for being a journalist, I'd say that make them fascist not anti fascist.

Again Wikipedia is allowing a POV group define themselves.Unselfstudier (talk) Unselfstudier (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 22:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What discospinster said. So glad you are here. Bowing out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News is not close to being the leading US news network and we avoid usung it. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may avoid using it. But it a legitimate source.Unselfstudier (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

@Unselfstudier [1] Can you please clarify who you are referring to in your comments on the UNHRC talk page - "Wikipedia allows an anti semitic groups to determine issues"?

Also could you confirm whether you have had a Wikipedia account prior to your current one? Appreciated. Thank you, DSQ (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actoreon there is such a requirement and an administrator is not suppose to block someone without discussing other way to resolve. I can only assume that this is because all of you (I check your posts) disagree with me..Unselfstudier (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you even read this page? I replied to this below last night. And your refusal to answer whether this is your only account ever makes it pretty clear it's not. I have no idea where you got it into your head that an Admin has to discuss anything with you first. We don't. You can't find any such rule, so it's silly to keep claiming it. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why you're directing this at me; I'm only interested in your previous accounts & who you were calling antisemitic. You can assume what you like, but the reasoning for your block has been made quite clear. As for "I check your posts", again, I dunno if this is directed at me personally or not, but as you started your post with "Actoreon" I assume you've read the message I left for Acroterion - any comments on that? --DSQ (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it obviously attacks or impersonates another person, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}

Cullen328 (talk) 04:07, 10 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).

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

Request reason:

I am being blocked for a user name? It seem this is an excuse to get rid of me I have been threatend by administrators so this is obvious a breaking of the rules. No one discussed. If you check the talk pages several posters are attacking me. But Cullen328 never contacted me, which the administrator is required to do.Unselfstudier (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As Doug Weller points out there is no such requirement. You are clearly trying to stir up a conflict with Selfstudier, and you seem bent on attacking anyone who dares to question your editing or username. Unblock requests that do not address your own conduct are not considered. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 10 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.

Who is Selfstudier? All I know is he revertred one of my edits? I am the one being attacked. Look at the page.

No such requirement exists and you’ve avoided answering two questions above. And the block notice is a standard approved template. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I am under no obligation to discuss in advance before blocking an editor who overtly violates the username policy. Of course, we should be quick to unblock when the editor shows self-awareness and persuasively agrees to avoid disruptive editing going forward. That does not seem to be the case here, since this editor feigns ignorance, under the incorrect assumption that Wikipedia administrators have just fallen off a turnip cart. We haven't. Cullen328 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen according to the link Iposted you are. But please tell me what on my talk pages is so disruptive other than it alienates people who have the opposite view. According to Wikipedia rules Administrators are not support to ban someone without looking at other way to resolve conflict. Did you even look at the pages I edited , they well well thought out arguments.Unselfstudier (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unselfstudier You are continuing to make a false claim about what Admins have to do even though you've been told again in the denial of your appeal there is no such requirement.

If you continue the next step is to stop you from using your talk page while letting you make appeals by email. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales asking for donations

Might be easier if you did not have administrators blocking editors because they disagree with them.Unselfstudier (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not why you were blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]