User talk:DaEditorz
April 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm Spf121188. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you think something should be removed, take is to the article talk page to gain consensus first. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I looked back and you're correct. My apologies. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- no problem, pal! Glad to see that there are people here looking out for accurate information! Slava Ukraini! DaEditorz (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your assessment is incorrect as you obviously did not read the sources to see Oxford and Princeton University press are just some of the top sources included.Foorgood (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just because you have sources from Oxford and Princeton doesn't automatically verify them, they are verified based on the merits of the actual sources themselves, not the institutions from which they came. You already have a warning on your talk page regarding edit warring and if you continue to engage in such behaviour, you can be banned from editing Wikipedia. DaEditorz (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are the one that reverted (edit warred) top sourced information. This is obviously a sock puppet account as this is your first edit on wikipedia. You will be reported now.Foorgood (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how many sources you have if they are very clearly opinionated ones. Also, I'm a sock puppet because I started editing today? That seems rather foolish. It seems that you are just trying to deflect from the fact that you have previously been reported for such violations. DaEditorz (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are the one that reverted (edit warred) top sourced information. This is obviously a sock puppet account as this is your first edit on wikipedia. You will be reported now.Foorgood (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just because you have sources from Oxford and Princeton doesn't automatically verify them, they are verified based on the merits of the actual sources themselves, not the institutions from which they came. You already have a warning on your talk page regarding edit warring and if you continue to engage in such behaviour, you can be banned from editing Wikipedia. DaEditorz (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your assessment is incorrect as you obviously did not read the sources to see Oxford and Princeton University press are just some of the top sources included.Foorgood (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- no problem, pal! Glad to see that there are people here looking out for accurate information! Slava Ukraini! DaEditorz (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I looked back and you're correct. My apologies. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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:
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. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
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.