User talk:2230redondo

October 2021

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Zodiac Killer in popular culture because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake. It is all true, it is a great way to introduce new viewers to the Zodiac Saga, It represents "true crime" media and gives the page life. If you have any questions about the facts and the story, why don't you actually click on the links and view the referenced material. The people are real, the Reporter is the "Zodiac" Reporter, don't think it gets more media and modern culture than that. I don't really know what your objection is. The rules say that some exceptions to the 2 paragraph rule should apply when necessary and makes sense. The page is completely boring without it and makes it more interesting to see the movies, films, plays, and audio renditions of the true life saga than just a line telling the title and author or producer or director of a material. In my humble opinion. Oh and by the way, that is the pictuer of the "Zodiac' not the guy with the glasses... He was the killer of Paul Stine, they are two different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2230redondo (talk • contribs) 03:06, October 22, 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Zodiac Killer in popular culture. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zodiac Killer in popular culture. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. None of this is appropriate for this article; I recognize you're a new editor and perhaps not accustomed to collaboratively editing, so please read WP:BRD and if you really believe your edits are warranted, start a discussion on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you and Materialist should actually click on the links in the introduction and bring that information to the talk page and then come back with intelligent and cogent examples of irrelevant material as far as the zodiac killer in pop culture, I don't think you could find anything more important than his 'REAL" name and his actual picture... I have his actual picture, his address, his social security number - where he moved to in Dec. 1969 - his home phone number , his son's name - his son's phone number, and the reason why he killed, his profession, should I continue. I held back a lot of information - so that the intro fit into the scheme of the page. so if you have an objection other than you hate the 'truth' let's here it. 2230 Redondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2230redondo (talk • contribs) 03:59, October 22, 2021 (UTC)

You obviously feel very strongly about having your version of this published; and that's fine. But Wikipedia is not the forum for that. The best outlet for you might be to start a blog, apart from Wikipedia, where you have full editorial control and do not need to collaborate with other editors. TJRC (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My aunt use to have a great saying, "Better to be thought to be ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You might want to keep that last sentence to yourself. If Wikipedia is not the place to add relevant information about the identity of Worldwide Known Serial Killer, who's story of cryptic ciphers has captured the imagination of the world for over 5 generations and 50 years, and has been the 'hot' subject of debate lately as liars, charlatans, creeps, and thieves have moved to the forefront to claim achievements in decoding these letters, then where would you suggest that information go? In a wood shed? or just out of your site? I hope you are not serious, because if you are you have exposed yourself for the self interested person you must be in hiding the 'truth'. If you feel the information is phony or false - click on the link to the work of Mr. Butler and copy and paste the section you feel is fraudulent and post your reasons as a comment on the section or publish it as a rebuttal, whatever you wish and if 'you can provide an intelligent, cogent, supported argument for that reason, I will relent and allow my addition to be 'redacted'. Until then, maybe you should have a coke and smile.

Peace! 2230 Redondo...

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2230redondo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 2230redondo! 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 Blaze The Wolf (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for evading your block by editing without logging in. 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 ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to C. Fred

<redacted, nothing to do with how this user will contribute constructively if unblocked>

While your research would be on-topic for the article on the Zodiac killer, it is not acceptable because it is original research. Only if your conclusions were written about in a major newspaper, etc. would they be includable on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted, nothing to do with how this user will contribute constructively if unblocked>

No. You should not post about yourself because of your conflict of interest. If the Chronicle story and related activities warrants a mention in the pop culture article, let somebody independent of the story summarize the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that one of your redacted replies was to assert that you do not have a conflict of interest, it is clear that you do not understand Wikipedia policies. You must demonstrate awareness of and willingness to abide by our policies before an unblock will be considered. In light of this, I endorse Acroterion's decision to revoke your talk page access. So long as your conduct demonstrates unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policies, expect to not have any editing privileges on Wikipedia or use of Wikipedia facilities such as talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since your sole purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to present your own ideas about Zodiac, I've blocked indefinitely and removed talkpage access. I've also blocked the IP used to evade the block on this account. Further evasion will be met with more blocks and removal of access. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion has continued in December, 2021. --Yamla (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]