User talk:Bitsnake420

leave me a message!!! i will always respond

Welcome!

Hello, Bitsnake420, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hyde

Please note: wp:biographies of living persons (BLP) need to be well sourced. I notice that Hyde's middle name is often changed. His full name should either be sourced or reduced to simply "Sam Hyde". If there are other contentious bits of info, they too should be sourced or removed. Jim1138 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- You're right. Shortening it to Sam Hyde would make more sense. I'll try to find a source on his middle name, if possible. Thanks for the comment --Bitsnake420 (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Sam Hyde, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- When did i ever vandalise Sam Hyde's page. This is completely not true. I removed the vandalism that was on his page, sam hyde is not jewish and his mother isnt Lena Goldstein. That is obviously vandalism as Lena Dunham and the word 'Goldstein' are inside jokes within the mde community. Dont accuse me of vandalism when you are clearly WRONG. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies the article is so poorly sourced and endlessly vandalised that it is hard to discern the actual facts about him. Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- || Alright, no worries then. Apology accepted --Bitsnake420 (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sagecandor (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In WHAT way did i possibly vandalize the page. You are kidding. I REMOVED bias vandalism. There is absolutely zero confirmation with factual evidence to prove that the theory is FALSE or TRUE. Absolutely zero vandalism. I will edit it again now. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no evidence to prove that it is true, it is deemed false. We live in a world where there is a presumption of innocence, and if not a single person can present a single shred of actual evidence that what they claim exists is real, the rest of the world will continue to look at "Pizzagate" believers as dangerously-uninformed conspiracy theorists. This is the world of reality, not the world of fake news. If you disagree with that, you should find another project to edit because you will not be happy on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic makes no sense, you're telling me that anything that has no evidence to support its truth is false, whilst also having zero evidence to support that its false. So you're making a huge contradictory paradox here. What happened to giving people the genuine truth of the matter, which is the inbetween. I never stated that the theory is true. I never stated that the theory is false. Because there is no evidence to prove either 'argument', therefore what im TRYING to do is remove the biased edits in the article which support either side of the claim (without providing any evidence that is). Because right now, the truth is the main necessity. You are defending a user making biased edits with sources that are not reliable at all for the reader of the article. A huge lack of self awareness is very visible here. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough - your questions have been answered. Stop attempting to personalize the discussion. The sources and wording have been extensively discussed, and consensus and policy are clear, whether you agree with them or not. Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im not attacking anyone at all, nor am i personalizing the discussion. Im trying to prevent the article from being as biased as it is, and responding to the people who have sent me replies/stated my name. I will respond to people, thats final. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of "User:Bitsnake420"

User:Bitsnake420, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content, or remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. You can contest the deletion by clicking the "Contest this speedy deletion" button inside the speedy deletion tag. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Serols (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Incredible Hulk (cocktail). Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Louis C.K.. Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love you babe --Bitsnake420 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bitsnake420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You allow hired shills to run your site and shove disinfo down peoples throats. You people DISGUST me. The public is slowly becoming more and more aware to your shit. The day of retribution shall come very soon.Bitsnake420 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (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. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2016 (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.