User talk:Wikicop33

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 13:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Racial bias in criminal news in the United States 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 the 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. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your text at Racial bias in criminal news in the United States that " people of all colour are treated equally" is simply untrue

Please red WP:VERIFY - many, many reliable sources contradict your claim. You can't find reliable sources that back it. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Ethnic group

An image of a multi-ethnic person is not a sensible image to use ti illustrate an ethnic group. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to this conversation. The photo Wikicop33 posted for Ethnic group was the same photo he has now posted as the primary photo for Multiracial. I have posted a dispute on its talk page. Coffeesweet (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the thread below, I understand you hate the person in the picture, you can remove the picture. Here is the discussion or reply to Doug "I edited the main image which of the article, I wanted the main image of the article to be as neutral as possible without showing any one particular ethnic group. I did make another edit in Multiracial part and it makes more sense to add it there than on the ethnic group, thank you! As for the racial bias article, I think the article that was written was very biased and it would surely add a lot of hatred between the whites and the black, lots of the stats doesn't even make sense, it says most of the white cops arrest blacks, it completely ignores the fact that the US is a white majority country so the numbers of more white cops arresting black criminals makes sense? Open to debate." Thanks! Wikicop33 (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are "open to debate," but you seem staunchly firm in your own viewpoint. And, no, I do not "hate" the person in the picture. Coffeesweet (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. I can show the proofs of what you did to the admins if you take this further. Yes, I am open to debate, you were the one being staunchly firm that's why you reverted the edit 3-times. Wikicop33 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Ethnic Group and Racial Bias

I edited the main image which of the article, I wanted the main image of the article to be as neutral as possible without showing any one particular ethnic group. I did make another edit in Multiracial part and it makes more sense to add it there than on the ethnic group, thank you! As for the racial bias article, I think the article that was written was very biased and it would surely add a lot of hatred between the whites and the black, lots of the stats doesn't even make sense, it says most of the white cops arrest blacks, it completely ignores the fact that US is a white majority country so the numbers of more white cops arresting black criminals makes sense? Open to debate. Thanks! Wikicop33 talk 17:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug's point is what you or I think does not belong in articles. Referenced content rules. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicop33, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wikicop33! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Equestrianism

Hello Wikicop33,

An image that you personally do not like is not "vandalism". Please read WP:VANDALISM and please realize that this word has a very specific and narrow definition on Wikipedia. You marked your edit as minor. Removing an image is not a minor edit. Please read WP:MINOR. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Wikicop33 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Concorde. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please do not state in an edit summary that you "corrected two grammatical errors" when you in fact had not. Also, you need to go to the talk page to suggest your formatting which had already been reverted. Moriori (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Did you even take a look at my edits? Please check the grammar for the current reverted edit: 1st grammatical error: "18 remain good physical condition" -> the word "in" is missing before good... 2nd grammatical error: "at museum" -> it is "the museum" not museum Wikicop33 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? You changed "Aircraft on display" to "Aircrafts" on display. You also changed the perfectly grammatical "at museums in..." to "at the museums in...".Moriori (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first one is correct either way, I agree the second one "at museums in.." is correct but the way you just overlooked by correction with "in good.." was just stunning! Wikicop33 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is not correct either way. The plural of aircraft is aircraft, not aircrafts. Moriori (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree now, sorry but you could have just reverted the two wrongly edited ones with explanation while retaining my current edit, instead of what you did before. Either way, thanks for explaining.

OK. But a word of advice. When you post something about Editor Y on Editor Z's talk page, like you did here, it is polite to advise Editor Y that you have done so. Also, I mentioned the words "unconstructive" and "disruptive" in my message to you (see above). I never mentioned vandalism. Moriori (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Concorde, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing "at museums in..." to "at the museums in...". Your change is not grammatically correct. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it makes sense now, but could you guys be a little bit polite? First, Moriori claimed both my edits were incorrect, at least you agree that one of my edits are correct. Thanks, anyway! Wikicop33 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bias and racism

As I noted here, any further accusations of racism or racial bias from you when disagreeing on content will lead to a block of your account. Gain consensus for the edits you want to make instead of edit warring, and stop with the unsubstantiated personal attacks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, as below there is technical overlap between yourself and the Richagowda socks. If you've going to dispute it you will need to explain to any reviewing admin why you edited exclusively through VPNs and webhosts (in similar fashion to Josefreyman) while sharing the exact UA of the other socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for general disruption, personal attacks, soapboxing and abuse of multiple accounts.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]