User talk:Flyingchiimp12

Welcome!

Hello, Flyingchiimp12, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:22, 20 February 2020 (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).

Flyingchiimp12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was simply trying to ask questions and give a different viewpoint to make sure we have fair and impartial information. I think that's quite literally the opposite of "not here to build an encyclopedia" Flyingchiimp12 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be here to push a particular political agenda and not work collaboratively with people of all views and nationalities to build this encyclopedia. You also seem to not understand what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source(certainly not online videos of dubious quality). Others might disagree but the only path I see to you being unblocked is agreement with a topic ban from posy-1932 US politics related subjects and knowing what you would edit about instead. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 21 February 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.

Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias and does not give equal time to all points of view; article content depends on coverage in independent reliable sources. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are provided so readers can see what they are and evaluate them for their validity or bias themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot no sir YOU seem to be here to "push a particular political agenda". I went to the talk page to ask a question from my "view and nationality" and was blocked just for trying to get more clarification. You say "Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias" yet block me because you claim I am biassed. This leads me to believe that at any time someone can get blocked for asking an innocent question just because someone disagrees. It's good to know that a Wikipedia admin acknowledges the site's bias because it makes literally 0 sense that I was blocked for not working "collaboratively with people of all views" yet at the same time you claim Wikipedia does not "give equal time to all points of view". I am clearly being targeted for my perceived political leaning and it is frustrating.Flyingchiimp12 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be totally unfair if at any time someone can get blocked for asking an innocent question just because someone disagrees. That would be terrible.

That's why policy doesn't allow that.

We can, however, block someone for sheer incompetence, such as being so disconnected from reality that they can't label as "fake news" a site that claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps.

If your next response is anything but either a promise to avoid articles relating to politics and biographies of living persons or else questions on how to edit within the site's policies (outside of those topics), I'm revoking your talk page access. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Flyingchiimp12's response was a personal attack, the response was removed from the page history, and Flyingchiimp12's talk page access was revoked. Unwatching the page now: we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]