User talk:Account2022XI

August 2022

Hello, I'm Constant314. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sissy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Your additions are unsourced and full of opinions. You have been reverted. The onus is on you to make a case on the article talk page if you want to include the material. Constant314 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1+1=2 is NOT an opinion neither is any of the edits. Account2022XI (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think 1+1=2 is a soapbox wrong. there was no opinions only FACTS written Account2022XI (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All content must provide a reliable source when requested. If no reliable source is provided, the content may be removed. That is Wikipedia policy. Your content is not a self-evident truth. It needs a reliable source (WP:RS). Constant314 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Sissy, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Constant314 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

libel means lies not truth so your accusation is invalid Account2022XI (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your accusation of libel is FALSE Account2022XI (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Account2022XI! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sissy several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Sissy, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Constant314 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Sissy. – NJD-DE (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Fanofxijinping per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanofxijinping. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]