User talk:Zizek Rocks

Welcome!

Hi Zizek Rocks! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! El_C 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 revert rule and edit warring

Your recent editing history 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. El_C 11:30, 2 January 2022 (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:Zizek_Rocks reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: ). Thank you. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Zali Steggall. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This sort of thing is totally inappropriate. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for two weeks for WP:BLP violations and edit-warring at Zali Steggall; and personal attacks. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. If you make a personal attack again, I will increase your block to indefinite and revoke access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked/Censored

It's not a "personal attack" when you're simply pointing out that the editor in question was sanitizing a political candidate's Wikipedia by removing primary sources of material prior to a federal election. The constant reversions that have removed primary sources have removed key facts that speak to the subjects lack of personal integrity and the sympathetic interview she was given by her advocate in the media. These reversions and the blocking of any further discussion of the matter serve to discredit Wikipedia as a source of objective information. I look forward to my appeal being dealt with in a timely and judicious manner. The further threat here is clearly outrageous and far worse than any alleged "personal attack".

Discretionary sanctions alert - Biographies of Living Persons

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Edits were made in good faith and cited primary sources. Zizek Rocks (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:21, 9 January 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.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I am new to this forum and I was unaware of the edit-warring rules that led to the initial block. I now understand why I have been blocked. The allegation of 'personal attacks' also fails to deal with substance of the claim, that the editor has engaged in political censorship. The current block is preventing resolution of the matter through the talk page and is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia as a source of objective information. The details of three primary sources of information remain removed from the entry and need to be resolved. Zizek Rocks (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No one is preventing discussion of this matter on the talk page, but you are not allowed to edit war while that discussion takes place. If necessary, dispute resolution is available. I am not convinced that the behavior will stop going forward, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 10 January 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.

Just for your information, Wikipedia does not claim to be an objective source of information; Wikipedia only claims to summarize independent reliable sources with a neutral point of view. Any bias in reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia; those sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Laxale

Please mind BLP as you have been blocked for this in the past. The second half of the para doesn't seem to match your attached source Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for your objection. The second paragraph is taken from the attached source. There is further no justification for removing the content, the matter has been reported in the media and is being investigated. Zizek Rocks (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]