User talk:18sqnbloke
December 2021
[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Souad Faress. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Rubbish. This material is referenced and true. You are defending a false rape accuser. 18sqnbloke (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- And yet, you added no references. See the issue? Primefac (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Your website blocks any attempt to post hyperlinks to the news sources which report the story. This site is an echo-chamber which actively prevents reporting. 18sqnbloke (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- We only block links to sources that are heavily biased or otherwise extremely problematic. If there is a reliable source that happens to be caught up in the blacklist, then you should ask that it be whitelisted so that it can be used. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect. Your blocklist covers most of the British newspapers. Your pathetic definition of 'biased' and 'problematic' differs from the dictionary definition, and has come to mean anything which disagrees with the far-left mindset which permeates this site.
It looks like you have become so deaf in your echo-chamber that you have forgotten what objective reporting looks like.
Shame. 18sqnbloke (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are plenty of British newspapers that are listed at WP:RSP that are deemed acceptable, so "most of" seems to be a bit of stretch. I do find it a bit ironic that you're calling me pathetic for supposedly having some sort of far-left mindset, when you yourself are using "objective reporting" to refer to what I assume are tabloids. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I shouldn’t have to inform you that neither you, nor Wikipedia, are the arbiter of what is deemed ‘acceptable’. By restricting so narrowly the newspapers you allow editors to use as references, you are strangling free speech and reinforcing the proven far-left bias here. What you call ‘tabloids’ are still mainstream newspapers, reporting facts. They just happen to be facts that people like you don’t like having pointed out to them.
Given this, I doubt you even know the meaning of ironic. 18sqnbloke (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia can define acceptable in whatever way it deems fit, which in general is done by a consensus of editors who have commented on an RFC indicating that whichever mysterious publications you are wanting to use are unfit for the purposes of creating an encyclopedia. I do hope you realise that when I was referring to "tabloids" I was not referring to the physical size of the paper, but rather tabloid journalism and the papers that publish it. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I note you have avoided engaging with and admitting the circular reporting and echo-chamber feedback loop you have been confronted with. That's your problem, I can't make you own up to your biases.
As has been pointed out to you, your 'consensus of editors who have commented on an RFC' does not have the final say on what is 'acceptable speech' and they, nor you, will ever stop me using mainstream sources which report the facts.
You don't really understand journalism or reporting, that is obvious from your incoherent ramblings about paper sizes. You should know that reputable mainstream and tabloid papers have been blocked as sources. But given your contributions so far, I doubt you can even spell 'source'.
Again, I will use whatever sources I think are acceptable. Good luck stopping me.
But given this site's funding issues and begging pop-ups, you may not be around much longer to police the internet.
18sqnbloke (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure I do have inherent biases, but "reverting unsourced changes" is not invalidated by any bias, (and that also goes for my understanding of journalism, or lack thereof). On Wikipedia, though, consensus does provide the final say on what sources can (or cannot) be used. Speaking of which, you keep saying you have all of these sources but haven't actually mentioned which ones they are - how can we evaluate sources (whether mainstream, tabloid, or someone's blog) if we don't actually know what we're discussing?
- As far as "stopping you", I have zero interest in keeping you from adding content that is supported by reliable sources. If they are not reliable, though, there is that handy "undo" button that will revert the edit(s). I'd say that's pretty lucky! Primefac (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Well luckily for me I have found a source that is not on the very long Wikipedia censored list. Even the BBC (at its worst) can't be refuted as a reliable source.18sqnbloke (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- The BBC does not name the person who sued, so adding it to the page of the person you believe, based on unreliable sources, to have sued is generally unacceptable in regard to our policy on writing about living people. I have blocked you from the page indefinitely for your choice not to drop it. Izno (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong, as usual. There are reputable sources which name (Redacted), but as I have patiently explained to you the newspapers which name her are blocked by this site for no other reason than the far-left bias on this site. No matter, I will continue to keep adding this edit via other means.18sqnbloke (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you cannot find a reliable source that is acceptable per Wikipedia's standards, then it will not be added. If you continue to attempt to add it as unreferenced content, you will be blocked from editing. End of story. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong again. This must be painful for you, you should learn to read properly. As has been patiently explained to you many times, there are reliable sources which name Souad Faress, but they are blocked by the far-left political policies of this site. I will continue to add this edit, either by this account or others. Good luck stopping me, the story will continue until I say so. (PS, it will happily disturb you to know that even without mentioning it on Souad Faress's page, the truth of what she did is currently free to see on many news sources via a google search and also on Twitter. So your pathetic attempts to censor the truth have been in vain!).18sqnbloke (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- What happens on other platforms is not my concern. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Notice
[edit]
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.
HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
[edit]