User talk:CSOlson3389

Your recent editing history at Soul (2020 film)‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Soul (2020 film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Soul (2020 film). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I removed a piece from an article, due to it coming from a point of view. I was actually doing what you state you are trying to do to me. Unless your goal is to promote bias and a subjective view as opposed to an objective one, then you are persecuting the wrong person. CSOlson3389 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CSOlson3389 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: ). Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not committed any crime by trying to uphold an unbiased and objective point of view for an article. My understanding is that Wikipedia was a source of truth in our world. However blocking someone who tried to remedy a portion of an article that was subjective and didn’t hold to an unbiased point of view is the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. It is very saddening. And I have lost faith that this site was a beacon of truth in our world. CSOlson3389 (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting UTRS appeal #38933, declined 2020-12-27 20:48:40, for a complete record of this sorry tale. Cabayi (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not committed any crime by trying to uphold an unbiased and objective point of view for an article. My understanding is that Wikipedia was a source of truth in our world. However blocking someone who tried to remedy a portion of an article that was subjective and didn’t hold to an unbiased point of view is the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. It is very saddening. And I have lost faith that this site was a beacon of truth in our world. CSOlson3389 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Connie1337, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not committed any crime by trying to uphold an unbiased and objective point of view for an article. My understanding is that Wikipedia was a source of truth in our world. However blocking someone who tried to remedy a portion of an article that was subjective and didn’t hold to an unbiased point of view is the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. It is very saddening. And I have lost faith that this site was a beacon of truth in our world. CSOlson3389 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CSOlson3389. 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. 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 ~~~~}}. Cabayi (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not committed any crime by trying to uphold an unbiased and objective point of view for an article. My understanding is that Wikipedia was a source of truth in our world. However blocking someone who tried to remedy a portion of an article that was subjective and didn’t hold to an unbiased point of view is the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. It is very saddening. And I have lost faith that this site was a beacon of truth in our world. CSOlson3389 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying, Censorship, and Persecution

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).

CSOlson3389 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not committed any crime by trying to uphold an unbiased and objective point of view for an article. My understanding is that Wikipedia was a source of truth in our world. However blocking someone who tried to remedy a portion of an article that was subjective and didn’t hold to an unbiased point of view is the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. It is very saddening. And I have lost faith that this site was a beacon of truth in our world. CSOlson3389 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't ask to be unblocked. You also have not addressed your sockpuppetry. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2020 (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.

You have not committed a crime as Wikipedia is not a government with legal authority over you. You have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, our primary goal is not truth, but verifiability, because truth is in the eye of the beholder. Only you can decide what is "true" for you. A Wikipedia article about a film or any creative work will tell what reviewers state about it. You are free to offer your own sources with less favorable reviews if they exist. If you disagree with what a cited film reviewer says, you will need to take that up with the reviewer, not Wikipedia, because Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. You are certainly not being "persecuted" and "censored". Just as you can determine what is said and done within the four walls of your residence, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to determine what appears on its computers. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you have to tell yourself. You must have a very sad life. CSOlson3389 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can avoid what I am addressing and play games if you like. I was under the understanding that Wikipedia was actually administered by professionals. Don’t kid yourself. CSOlson3389 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I don’t have an issue with what the reviewer said at all. I quite like the film and I think this particular critic’s opinion is splendid. I do however understand that the article is not cited properly. A line from the opinion article is thrown in as fact. That’s just basic writing. So if you don’t want Wikipedia to be a respectable organization, you keep playing your games. CSOlson3389 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no game being played here. I told you the way it is. Wikipedia makes no assertions that something is fact or true as I stated. Only you can decide what is true for you. If you are interested in civilly collaborating with others as to what an article should say, please do so and refrain from edit warring. You are free to make another unblock request that someone else will review, but you will need to change how you are operating and address your sockpuppetry, and not throw around personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is written is not proper writing. The second sentence of the critical reception section is not cited properly. If you want to include those then cite them properly and don’t have them down as fact to influence. Is the other user blocked? Probably not. CSOlson3389 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it is a joke that you keep speaking for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a large community and you are not upholding the standards that are expected of the community CSOlson3389 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This whole situation has given me pause on donating in the future if this is the way people who are trying to help are to be treated and the standards are not going to be upheld, and Wikipedia is no longer going to be what it was. CSOlson3389 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, as you note, a large community. It works well when the standards are upheld. The standards require that we collaborate and discuss changes - WP:BRD. The history of Soul (2020 film) shows you removed the same chunk of text seven times, ignoring the cautions which were building up here on your talk page. You ignored them to the point of getting blocked. You then created a sockpuppet to get around that block which I had to block, and to extend your block. You also violated the block as an anonymous (IP) editor. Please do not gaslight yourself into believing you are trhe innocent party.

The standards also leave you with access to your talk page so that you may appeal your block. Continuing to use it for other purposes may result in that access being withdrawn for the duration of your block, and possibly in having the current 1 week block extended further. Cabayi (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I don’t think I’m the one gaslighting here buddy. Stonewall and play games. I see now how this works. Are you going to address the legitimate concern about the article in question? That doesn’t seem to be up to standard. I agree with the opinion of the critics, but if you want to actually uphold respectable standards as a supposed administrator, you’ll want to fix that. The articles are not cited properly in that passage and are put in the passage as fact. That’s not impartial and unbiased. Have a nice day friend. CSOlson3389 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the content you were removing. Wikipedia is a group process, operating on what we call consensus. As you were advised in the very first message on this page, the appropriate thing to do would have been to go to the article talk page and make your case. For all I know, you are correct in your evaluation of the material in question -- but because of your actions, we have to deal here with your behavior, not the article content --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying I do not claim to speak for Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol oh I love how badly I'm getting you guys 😭😂🤣 CSOlson3389 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]