User talk:Americanknowledge96

Welcome!

Hello, Americanknowledge96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Thomas.W ^talk 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm Thomas.W. I noticed that you made a change to an article, AR-15, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You can not add material without also providing sources for it, sources that should be provided as inline references at the same time as the material is added. Thomas.W ^talk 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at AR-15 style rifle, you may be blocked from editing. You removed an obviously true and verified statement, changed the title of a NYT article, added a false zero, and inserted some weirdly positive commentary. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

the information removed was from a “bias on the subject” to keep the subject neutral the information on mass shooting is incorrectly placed at the beginning of the article, this information isn’t done on any of the other gun articles why is the AR article different. Also the number of AR’s in circulation can’t truly be calculated because of 80% lowers and also people building more uppers than lowers. most estimates put the ar in higher production numbers than what most news outlets state. Americanknowledge96 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=vandalizing?

read my last talk please Americanknowledge96 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2018 (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).

Americanknowledge96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe the user who blocked me is doing so from their bias standpoint because after reviewing their page I can concur that they are anti-gun and they banned me due to the reason I tried to keep a page neutral vs how it came across as a anti-gun ban AR-15’s point of view on the page. If wikipedia’s goal is to have quick access to information should it be non-bias to help keep the reader from having a point of view presented to them in a one sided argument even though there are 2 sides.Americanknowledge96 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked because you faked numbers and the title of a source. You will need to address that. Personal attacks against the admin who blocked you do not help your cause. Huon (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2018 (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.

My counter against me being blocked is that the person who blocked me is biased and doesn’t want information that is correct to be displayed on a page. If you want strick CCW laws that make it illegal to carry it goes to show that this person is bias. Drmis your strike system seems faulty what happened to 3? Also I believe that you might want to prove me wrong before calling BS. Americanknowledge96 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You inserted falsified information into our articles, information proven false by the very references. Anyone can see that. I don't know where you get "three strikes"--we cannot have people willfully inserting false content. And for the love of God, if you're going to argue something and accuse someone of "bias", please use your words correctly. This talk of "bias" is bullshit: there are no "two sides" to a number, one the correct way and one with an additional zero. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]