User talk:GoogleMeNowPleaseA summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful
Reformulated:
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word". If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15 November 2019 14:44:42 (UTC) I wish to noteYour edit history includes four null edits as your 6th through 10th edits, immediately followed by your 11th edit, to a semi-protected page Template:Catholic Church sidebar. This looks very prejudicial to me, seemingly indicating impatience and an above-the-rules attitude. Your ensuing edits are not dissuasive. Shenme (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Welcome GoogleMeNowPlease!Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,573,306 registered editors!
Hello GoogleMeNowPlease. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!
I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put Please remember to:
Creating links in postsHi - thanks for posting at length on Gospel, and I'll try to get back later today. In the meantimew, about links:
Hope this helps and that I haven't been too patronising :) Achar Sva (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC) December 2019 Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Gospel that didn't seem very civil, You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gospel; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pumpkin seed oil, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. For content on medical topics, we rely on WP:MEDRS reviews. Zefr (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 18Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christianity and Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schismatic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Bemused.I thought I'd been quite welcoming to you, as in the post about links that I made on this page some weeks ago. I'm sorry if I've offended you. Achar Sva (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Personal attacksPersonal attacks like
January 2020You 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 ~~~~}} . Sandstein 22:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Sandstein 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigationAn editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC) UTRS 29193
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:
GoogleMeNowPlease (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #29193 was submitted on 2020-02-28 01:14:42. This review is now closed.
331dot (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC) UTRS 30263
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:
GoogleMeNowPlease (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #30263 was submitted on 2020-04-23 17:44:28. This review is now closed.
--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
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).
GoogleMeNowPlease (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I believe that Wikipedia has made it clear that a ban is not meant to be for punishment and for disciplining, but for the purpose of protecting the encyclopedia from being derailed. My appeals are my way of letting moderators know that I fully pledge not to repeat any behavior that was contributing to the server being derailed. I have in the past apologized for my puerile behavior and vow to not repeat it. I have patiently waited for 6 months without editing Wikipedia and believe that I am more than ready to contribute to this encyclopedia. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: See below (chronological order) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 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. @Sandstein: @Yamla: — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoogleMeNowPlease (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
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).
GoogleMeNowPlease (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I made mistakes when editing Wikipedia. I violated Wikipedia policies, started acting in an uncivil manner, insulted people, and started violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view principle. When I was very much deservedly blocked, I started opening numerous sockpuppet accounts to keep violating Wikipedia's policies. After some time, I became regretful, and asked Wikipedia administrators if there was anything I could do to regain the trust of the community and get unblocked. I was advised to wait, at least, 6 months without creating any sockpuppets, and appeal my block then. I have patiently waited more than 6 months, and ask to be unblocked. I realize what I did was violating Wikipedia policies, and I realize that blocking me was a correct decision at the time. I vow to not repeat my offending behavior and ask to be unblocked. I believe I have a lot to contribute once unblocked, and can't wait to get started. Thanks GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC) 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. What subjects do you want to edit if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You say you have used "numerous sockpuppet accounts". I am aware of some of them, but not enough to describe them as "numerous", so can you please say exactly what accounts you have used? JBW (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Unblock Request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
GoogleMeNowPlease (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: When I was editing Wikipedia, I violated several of Wikipedia's policies. First, I started edit warring, then insulting people, and then creating several alt accounts. After recognizing my mistakes, I was advised to wait 6 months and make an unblock request. Since it has been more than 6 months, here is my unblock request: I pledge to not repeat the mistakes that got me banned in the first place. I pledge to NOT insult users and NOT try to troll. I further pledge that this is and will be my only editing account on Wikipedia. I am willing to commit to this account. I further recognize that my initial block was justified and correct. I deserved to be blocked because I was disrupting the purpose of the encyclopedia. IF unblocked, I will move on to editing several articles, primarily about history, correcting grammar, adding sources and perhaps, illustrations. Accept reason: Accept per standard offer. User agrees to stick to one account and checkuser confirmed no abuse. only (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Checkuser needed: I'm willing to unblock if a checkuser can confirm that there hasn't been any abuse in the past 6 months as you said. only (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Edit warringYour recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020If 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 ~~~~}} . only (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
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).
GoogleMeNowPlease (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I believe I was blocked unjustly per what is stated above. Never violated 3 revert rule, never insulted people. Decline reason: Procedural decline, using 2nd unblock posted recently. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 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. This is a clear case of WP:IDHT. The user has already been told that WP:EW may apply even if they have not violated WP:3RR. Given the long abusive history, I recommend declining the unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I've got nothing further to add; as Yamla said above, there's a lot of WP:IDHT going on here. Edit warring does not require breaking the 3RR as has been mentioned here. Another admin will eventually examine your unblock request. only (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Enough. I've removed talk page access as you continue to harangue and ignore everything that has been told to you regarding this block. You may request an unblock at UTRS, however you NEED to address the reasons for your block and not use the line of "This isn't fair". RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 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).
GoogleMeNowPlease (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Since being unblocked, not once did I violate the 3 revert rule, always took to the talk page to explain any problems I had, and heeded every warning I was given. I was blocked despite all this, and remain unable to edit wikipedia indefinitely. I believe this is completely unjust, and needs looking into. Decline reason: You continued to behave in the exact same manner that led to your previous block. You violated the terms of that unlobck request and with this request for unblocking you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend no one is telling you anything. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 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.
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Your draft article, User:GoogleMeNowPlease/sandboxHello, GoogleMeNowPlease. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC) UTRS 33523This user has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #35523. The request is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC) UTRS 35911UTRS appeal #35911 is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC) COmmunity banNoting user is de facto WP:CBANned. This latest bit of disruption via a sock is just the icing on the cake. User will need to talk long and hard to convince anyone to unblock them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |