User talk:RandomUser3510

Welcome!

Hello, RandomUser3510, 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 take 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! Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American politics editing

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is just an informational notice. If you have any questions, let me know. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please review WP:RS much, much more carefully before proceeding. Algemeiner Journal is not a "tabloid" in the same sense as The Daily Mail or National Enquirer, it merely refers to the physical size of the paper. Likewise, sources do not have to be online to be reliable. Tag bombing the white pride article based on these flimsy technicalities will be seen as disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know tag bombing existed so don't assume the worst off the bat. It's not a flimsy technicality to review a source to see if it actually says what it claims to in the article. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Lokteff being a neo-Nazi

The only reason why I put the category "American neo-Nazis" on the Lana Lokteff article was because the Henrik Palmgren article had the "Swedish neo-Nazis" category. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this talk page but that's ok. Of all the sources used in the article none explicitly names Lokteff as being a neo-nazi. There are some associations that she hangs out with some as mentioned in the sources but none directly call her one that I could find. Here are some Wikipedia policies with my edit: WP:BLP and WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Just curious what your reason was you added the human trafficking category to the Pizzagate article. I can think of a few but would like to know which one was specifically yours. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact reasons I forgot but it seemed like a good idea at the time RandomUser3510 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious what you're doing

I've noted before that you're into things like equating the ADL to white supremacists, acting like "white pride" isn't just a white supremacist idea, even saying that it's fringe and that "the article is racist against white people"; and even citing a Youtube channel that promotes Holocaust denial conspiracy theories to push an out-of-context quote about Jewish people promoting multiculturalism.

Since then, you've continued promoting the white genocide conspiracy theory, referred to the realist position on it as "anti-white propaganda" and asked me to not guide someone away from racism because you find that offensive for some reason. Seriously, you need to stop and ask yourself why nobody but you thought it was a personal attack when I said "if you do not see yourself as a racist, you need to rethink your life." Context matters, and the context in both instances I've said that was to someone advocating a racist conspiracy theory.

If you're not here to promote white supremacist talking points, you're failing spectacularly at not doing so. Aside from a couple of edits suggesting belief in conspiracy theories beyond the white genocide conspiracy theory and one spelling correction, the entirety of your activity since 2018 has lined up perfectly with what an alt-right POV-pusher would want to do. Your contributions are not hidden, so the pattern isn't either, so trying to gaslight us isn't going to work. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could scan through your past edits and try and find some narrative that paints you as something too, but that is not what I am about. If you want me to explain all my past edits made several years ago I can maybe do that but it won't be as potent as when I made the edits back in the day simply because I'm not in the same state of mind as a few years ago. RandomUser3510 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 31439

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31439 is closed.

I'm reviewing your unblock request. I see there is an ongoing discussion about your edits at ANI. Mercy? My foot! This is not a court of law and we do not deal in justice, mercy, leniency or any "justice" system concept. We block people to prevent damage or disruption to the encyclopedia. We unblock if they demonstrate they will contribute to building the world's largest encyclopedia in a constructive manner. I have also read Ian's latest note, and I must say I smell gas. I am wholly unconvinced you will suddenly stop pushing alt-right talking points. Not sure how you would do that writing about video games, but I know that where there is a will there is a way. Be that as it may. You still have access to your user talk page. Please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review. Place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:52, 24 June 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).

RandomUser3510 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If reinstated I will not edit any political articles and their respective talk pages, nor write on anyone else's talk pages. I know how to edit articles, and think I could be of good use. I think future edits from me will be in the form of adding review templates to video games and such, like I did in the earliest days of my account. Examples of this include this, and this. For games that have controversy regarding social issues I will not edit those in any way nor their respective talk pages. RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There has been no evidence that you're at all a net positive to this project.--v/r - T P 05:04, 24 June 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.

.

ANI permalink

Special:permalink/964230419#User pushing alt-right talking points is the ANI discussion. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]