User talk:Facts Rule 77

Block evasion?

Hi Ad Orientem, this seems like a clear block evasion by the IP user. Thoughts? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Facts Rule 77, this does not help your case one bit. Please, please, find another hobby. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The hell are you talking about? You're wrongfully mistreating another user and I'm rightfully calling you out on it. There is no "case"- OUTSIDE of your appalling behavior towards an editor who you know nothing about! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account doesn't use the same IP address as the blocked IP address though, but even if it did, the block was specifically for unregistered users without accounts. This is an actual account! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you've been editing before as an IP user. You're editing the same article, you've got the same tone of voice (including writing words in ALL CAPS) and you created this account mere hours after the IP address was blocked. You might think the IP address was blocked, but you as a person are blocked. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But to give you the benefit of the doubt: the IP user was blocked for edit warring. What you just did shows you removed reliable sources. I strongly urge you to stop your disruptive editing. This will get you nowhere. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only things that I removed were things that the general consensus in the talk page was that the intro was too long for that page. As such, I only removed the unnecessary parts in accordance with what the general consensus was. I never removed any sort of source- that's for sure! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I created this account on August 27th! I'm just a University student, so I couldn't make any edits until recently, as I've been FAR too busy with other things! Oh- and we all speak like that at this University- we pretty much have to capitalize certain words to emphasize their importance for those who are unaware of their importance. It's no big deal really! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...No, you didn't. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Again with spewing nonsense- NOT a good look for you! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be removed/corrected! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Everything Everywhere All at Once. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not vandalizing anything! I'm actually correcting vandalism that was made against the consensus that was reached on the talk page! In other words- I'm doing things how they're supposed to be done here, so you're wrong in assuming that I'm vandalizing! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, you keep repeating that you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, and I'll put in bold for you: there is no consensus and you are edit warring. Please, go find something else to do. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to all the other editors involved in that article, there is indeed a consensus. That makes you outnumbered here! YOU are the one who needs to find something else to do, because wasting your time editing things back and going against the consensus of the page goes against the policy here at Wikipedia, and if you continue to do such things, you can- and will- end up losing your editing privileges. Leave the editing to those editors who actually know what they're doing- like me- and go find something else to do. Seriously. You're wasting my time and making it so that I keep having to revert your nonsense over and over again instead of leaving the article as it was before you started interfering with it! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the consensus right now, so once again- you're wrong. How very horrible (for you)! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, YOU are the one who is refusing to get the point- not me! If you didn't keep going against the consensus on the page and reverting my hard work solely out of spite for me, I wouldn't have to keep changing it back to keep proving the point to YOU that consensus was indeed reached, and that any and all edits that were made based on that. How you continue to be unable to face the FACTS is beyond me, but it is what it is I guess. Either way, until you eventually get the point, the article will continue to be changed back- either by myself or others- until the point is clear for you and anyone else here. You're sure as hell not winning anything here, I can guarantee you of that! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, YOU are the one who is refusing to get the point- not me! If you didn't keep going against the consensus on the page and reverting my hard work solely out of spite for me, I wouldn't have to keep changing it back to keep proving the point to YOU that consensus was indeed reached, and that any and all edits that were made based on that. How you continue to be unable to face the FACTS is beyond me, but it is what it is I guess. Either way, until you eventually get the point, the article will continue to be changed back- either by myself or others- until the point is clear for you and anyone else here! Opgeruimd Staat Netjes! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do yourself and me a favor: find something else to do. Read a book. Enjoy a video game. Meditate. Go on a hike. Maybe even edit constructively, Wikipedia needs people that are passionate about their interests. But please, WP:DROPTHESTICK. I know you've been editing as the IP user before. This will get you nowhere, it really won't. I have had these discussions dozens of times. I'm off to bed soon. Hope you have a good night. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I AM editing constructively, idioot! Again, YOU are the one who needs to find something else to do- instead of meddling in the constructive edits of those you don't like! It's still daytime where I am in the world, so I have many hours to further get my point across, and I will not stop until that point is made clear! Opgeruimd Staat Netjes! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Materialscientist, you declined my ARV report, could you maybe look into this if you have the chance? I'm off to bed. I'm pretty sure we're dealing with a block evasion here. (I've been reverting again and again, but I'm happy to take the bullet). Thanks and have a good day! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your ARV report was declined is because you're the one in the wrong here, idioot! Opgeruimd Staat Netjes! This account was made before any IP blocks were given out- I've made that point VERY clear as well. Haal Dat Door Je Dikke Schedel, Waarom Niet? Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once, you may be blocked from editing. — Manticore 23:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never deleted any comments on the talk page. I just moved them to a section that was more fitting for it, and in order to do that, I had to copy and paste it into the section that it should've been under. But it wasn't "deleted"- as you claim, as you can't have two sections with the same discussion, so once one is copied and pasted under the correct section, the original one was removed, but it wasn't deleted, as the discussion was still there! If you could actually read, you'd have seen that- instead of having a stupid bot write your responses for you! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Everything Everywhere All at Once

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Everything Everywhere All at Once. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Manticore 22:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was reached on the talk page for the article, so this is NOT an edit war! An edit war means that edits have been made with no consensus having been reached, but that is not the case here. A consensus was reached. Please stop pestering me- let me edit in peace! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to change the meaning of edit war to suit your own interests. This is a textbook definition of edit warring, as explained to you by me and by the blocking admin on User talk:2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B. — Manticore 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a consensus was reached on the talk page (and it was) but no one changed it despite that, then what I've been doing does not count or classify as an "edit war". I looked at the article's talk page to confirm before I even made a single edit, and I only started making edits once I saw that consensus had been reached. What's so difficult for you to understand about that? Hmm? The fact that I know more about this topic than you do is pretty telling! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you forgot the discussion that superseded that one HERE. How are you not blocked yet? Surely it won't be long. Mike Allen 23:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that blocking is an extremely outdated and childish way of attempting to solve a problem, correct? I mean, every other site that used to do that- such as Twitter- have realized the sheer stupidity of it all, and have since moved on from such nonsense on their sites. It's only a matter of time until Wikipedia learns that as well! For one, it doesn't even work! In fact, it just makes people more and more angry, and gives them more of a reason to get around the so-called "system" that is used to block (and there's ALWAYS ways around that- I can assure you of that!), and when that happens, it does NOT end well for sites that continue with such outdated nonsense! That's why there's a number of sites that keep growing and growing that have removed that as an option- such as Twitter- because those sites know that there's literally no reason to do such a thing! Second- it has SERIOUS negative effects on other people's mental health, and can and WILL lead to even more serious repercussions if their feelings aren't taken seriously! Is that really something that you want on your conscience- somebody taking their own life because of your asinine actions? That's why it's time to move on from such an outdated "policy" and start focusing on actually improving the overall Wikipedia project! Whether you like it or not- that's what I'm here to do, and your inability to improve Wikipedia- while unfortunate- is NOT going to stop me- or any other right-minded individuals for that matter- from improving this site and actually turning it into a reliable source- which- in its current state with its incredibly outdated policies- is something it will NEVER be. Unlike you, I'm here to IMPROVE Wikipedia, which is why my edits are there solely to improve- NOT vandalize, cause an edit war, or anything else like that. Just figured you should know! For further proof of that, read this! The Psychology of Blocking Others Online: The Power Trip - Choosing to Cut Off Online Connections (fischerinstitute.com) Facts Rule 77 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Says that there's a discussion that superseded that one, yet doesn't clarify the EXACT one, and as such loses any and all credibility Mikey Boy could've had otherwise! Pitiful. Facts Rule 77 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious block evasion. I have extended the block on the IP address and protected the page Everything Everywhere All at Once to prevent further disruption. Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My account was made BEFORE there were any blocks, genius! So again, spewing nonsensical shit of out your retarded little ass won't get you anywhere! LMFAO! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My account was made on August 27th- which was a whole week before any blocks were made! But keep it going, retard- you're not stopping me! When I buy Wikipedia, your sorry retard ass is fired. The same applies to all your retarded "friends"! Facts Rule 77 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was created today. I have been around for over ten years and an admin for close to seven. I know how to read a log. Enough time has been wasted here. Talk page privileges are revoked. And the page has been protected to prevent further abuse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice try kiddo, but that isn't going to stop ME! Everyone with a properly functioning brain knows that blocking does nothing, and that there are always ways around that sort of thing! If you know what's good for you, you'll end up like all the sites that have stopped resorting to such asinine, childish, and immature ways- such as- but not solely referring to- Twitter. Plus, blocking out of spite just makes you and everyone else look like a bunch of fucking retards- which you all are anyway! I'll be back- you'll see, and once I am- boy- you'll wish I wasn't. Until then, here's an article about why blocking is a fucking retarded thing! L-ater! The Psychology of Blocking Others Online: The Power Trip - Choosing to Cut Off Online Connections (fischerinstitute.com) Facts Rule 77 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78196

is closed. Charmed I'm sure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]