User talk:Nkienzle

September 2022

Hello, I'm Acroterion. 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. Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Big lie. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude this is a joke. Wikipedia is a joke. Neutrality? You're perpetuating biased fake news in the articles. Get a grip and consider both sides of the story. Nkienzle (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Big lie, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm Andrevan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 06:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Stelter. Bennv123 (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been topic banned indefinitely from post-1992 American politics.

You have been sanctioned for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing in the area, for example this removal of a hidden comment while at the same time ignoring the talkpage consensus.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 10:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banning me for saying that CNN is left-leaning. Get a grip and stop censoring. Nkienzle (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not why. If you really don't understand why, that's another justification for the topic ban. Look at your September warnings. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now violating the TBan. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for topic ban violation

I'm baffled. All your six edits since you were banned from post-1992 American politics violate your topic ban. Did you think it would have been forgotten by now? You have been blocked for two weeks. If you do it again, you will be blocked for longer. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 17:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Do you think I care about rules broken when I don't believe in the premise for a ban in the first place? Are you delusional? Wikipedia is a cesspool of leftism, and your inability to call MSNBC left-leaning when 95% of the population would agree with such a classification is telling. Nkienzle (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You have been blocked indefinitely as not being here to help build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]