User talk:UnregisteredSkeptic

Welcome!

Hello, UnregisteredSkeptic, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome and kind wishes! All the best! UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Your recent editing history at Concealed carry in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 00:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A caution re: Source misrepresentation and other notes

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A few points for you:

First, I am asking you to stay off my user talk page, except for notifications required by Wikipedia policy. If you'd like to discuss an issue on an article, you may do so at individual article talk pages.

Second, please review WP:ONUS. This policy says, in substance, newly introduced material may be challenged by an editor (ideally an editor who expresses his or her reasoning), typically either in an edit summary or at article talk). IF this happens, the content may not be restored absent a consensus. Content cannot be strong-armed into an article absent consensus.

Third, "not all verifiable information must be included" in a Wikipedia article. Earlier, you asked me to prove that some of the new material you are proposing is "incorrect or biased." That's not the question. Even if a piece of information, or some source, is correct and factual - that doesn't guarantee inclusion. There are differences in significance and strength of source material. This is the principle of due weight. For example: blog posts and not the same as university press-published books; press releases are not the same as journalistic accounts; meta-analyses are not the same as short-term studies; on a broad topic, an academic journal article dealing with a long period of time nationwide is better than a think tank article on a narrow topic. Sometimes a point might be appropriate for a long mention, a short mention, or no mention at all.

Fourth, I am very concerned at some misrepresentation of source material in your edits. You have, on at least two occasions, inserted material not supported by a source, or cited to sources that don't match the claim being added to the Wikipedia article (edit 1, edit 2). Specifically, you added a claim that mass shootings in the United States are caused by opioids and SSRIs. But you cited no source supporting the claim about opioids. And you cited this journal article ... which says nothing at mass shootings at all. This is pretty clear source misrepresentation, and it is something that Wikipedia doesn't allow or tolerate. I'll assume that you were acting in good faith and this was just massive sloppiness, but it is not a good look.

--Neutrality^talk 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You speak as though you believe yourself to be standing on a a podium of morality and ethical high-ground. You are not anywhere near either. You are, impartially, a disheveled ignoramous with no regard for objective fact. You stand on a mountain of ignorance, narcissism, and despotism, passing out bowls of word salad to all those stupid enough to entertain your imbecilic nonsense. You have mastered the art of effortlessly twisting logic, reasoning, and research against itself and priding yourself about as a intellectual because of that. UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neutrality, I couldn't have said it better myself. :) Drmies (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 29 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ben Shapiro, you may be blocked from editing. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

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: {{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.

Drmies (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear: you're blocked for edit warring, for trolling, for wasting people's time, for non-neutral edits--in your career with this account and with User:SouthernCaliforniaExploration. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a miserable individual you must be. Good Lord, you are laughable. Have a wonderful day. UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]