User talk:Vincecrystal

Vincecrystal, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vincecrystal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic and journalistic sources

See WP:RS and WP:FRINGE for more details. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, while you are entitled to remove this message, you are not allowed to call it vandalism, per (again) WP:NPA and WP:NOTVAND. If you use the edit summary "removing possible vandalism" when removing these messages again, that's just going to be taken as more evidence for a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for other admins: this user came here to complain about a movie while pushing some conspiracy theory that "wikipedia admins have pretty much sabotaged this article", and after being told to work on the encyclopedia, he decided that the best way to do that was to say that a guy who sells "no touch" martial arts (that are ineffective if someone just doesn't believe in them) is somehow not fraudulent and that the Sandy Hook victims are faking it and that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is anything besides an delusional sham. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

This admin blocked me for no reason at all. You have no right to block me. I was making constructive edits! Your george dillman edits are biased. Dillman trained both muhammad ali and bruce lee, and there is photographic evidence to prove that. You blocked me for asking a freaking question about infowars? Had I known Ian Thomson was this semsitive I would not have asked the question about infowars in the first place. I also made a useful edit to the film solo, grammar and vocabulary. I also noticed that Ian Thomson blocked another user for them a similar reason with no rational. I am new to wikipedia editing and I do not believe that blocking someone who has made constructive edits, has not used foul language or attacked an editor deserves to be blocked. This is admin abuse. Vincecrystal (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:42, 9 June 2018 (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.

Vincecrystal (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTTHEM for why this appeal is going to be declined. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I followed all of the appropriate steps. By the way, pressure points do not take belief. They are scientifically proven to exist.

This account is Technically indistinguishable to PaulG524.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So even if he is unblocked for then above he will just get re-blocked for socking?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in response to your claim of not making PA's [1] "you have anger management problems." is a breach of our civility guidelines, "I do not want to offend this generation of children and their liberal values." is a PA pure and simple.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I converted this to a checkuser block yesterday with talkpage access revoked. He will have to either use UTRS or file an appeal with ArbCom if he wants to be unblocked.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would apologize to him for making an accusation he is unable to answer.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Yes I know he cannot respond, and has been blocked. But this may need to be kept an eye on.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the reported user. I had no issue with you (in your own words) having a rant about Wikipedia. But you also called for people to try and get an admin blocked. That is canvasing and is unacceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]