The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Socratesone. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
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-1932 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.
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.
My apologies, but I don't understand. Please, enlighten me. How is it a "personal attack" to say that somebody supports Antifa in the context of an edit (a removal of a comment on a talk page without any explanation) that is obviously influenced that specific bias? For instance, if somebody with a badge on their user page stating that they are a member of the "Proud Boys" deleted comments on that very same talk page without explanation, that wouldn't be relevant? Maybe you could point me to the actual specific policy? What are my options? Just put my comment back in? It seems as if this is NOT objective. I am perceived to be on the "wrong side" of an ideological issue and I am being silenced. I got to tell you, it's not looking good for the future of wikipedia. If wikipedia becomes an ideological propaganda mill rather than an objective source of information, that will be very dangerous. I'm seeing it everywhere - ideology creeping into the record as "objective" with minimal justification. I'm simply trying to be objective, and I think this entire situation, as well as the article, violates WP:NPOV. Socratesone (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, in the attack page, it reads "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic.". That is clearly the case here. Socratesone (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing...why is it saying that this is only my tenth edit? I used edit wikipedia all the time -- you know, before it was cool. I've probably made hundreds of edits pre-2012. What? I take a break for a few years and all that history is just erased? Down the memory hole? Socratesone (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're warned because you're casting aspersions against other editors based on your perception of their motivations, after they appropriately removed a talkpage comment of yours that was a forum-like discussion of your views on the subject, rather than a specific suggestion for article improvement, based on sourcing. This too is soapboxing [1] "Rather than address this, my comment was removed by a member who clearly states in his member profile that he is a "supporter of Antifa". Please don't let wikipedia turn into a propaganda arm of the far left. That would be extremely dangerous." is an inappropriate aspersion against another editor's motivations. Upping the ante to introduce a strawman argument concerning pedophilia brings you close to sanctions. Any more conduct of this kind [2][3] will result in a topic ban or a block.
As for your edit count, you've made 37 edits in total under this username, 33 of them in the past year. Did you use another account or edit from an IP before? Acroterion(talk)00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. InterstellarityT 🌟 20:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a basic, informational page about myself, who is an editor of wikipedia. It does NOT violate anything, and, in fact, is just a couple sentences describing myself and why I am on wikipedia editing. However, it appears that this request for speedy deletion is entirely based on one of the pages that I cam contesting (The "Proud Boys" page -- I have no affiliation with the organization, nor do I support it, but I contested, along with multiple others, that the use of the phrase "neo-fascist" to describe them is disingenuous and even dishonest, but citations and arguments are being erased, probably by the same ideologues that have marked my user page for "speedy deletion"). Apparently, some ideologues with a lot of time on their hands are trying to make it difficult for me to edit, and they will probably get their wish if it is continually shown that wikipedia is controlled by far-left ideologues. Socratesone (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was been erased. How am I supposed to re-write something that has been erased? It's like Stalin removing anything he doesn't like. This is FRIGHTENING. Wikipedia is the most used source of information in the world right now, and this is downright scary what is happening to it. I'm done. I'm not going to keep playing this game. Have fun with your neo-marxist circle-jerk. Disgusting. Socratesone (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
July 2019
This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Proud Boys, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you make further attacks on other editors, like you did at Proud Boys, I will be taking to you AN/I and you will almost certainly be blocked.Jorm (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What "defamatory content"? Are you talking about the point I was trying to make about proving a negative? I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I simply tried to point out the problem with proving a negative. IE ("Can you cite a reliable source saying that you are NOT a pedophile"). How is that defamatory if it is clearly within the context of trying to explain a point that seems to be going over everyone's heads? Socratesone (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You win. I'm giving up. Wikipedia is obviously going to be a "safe space" where far-left ideologues can be secure in the knowledge that they can be wrong and will not have to deal with logic or facts -- any argument that demonstrates they you are wrong will be erased by people like you. Go ahead and ban me. I'm not going to contribute anymore. If you need an excuse, here you go: Prove you're NOT a neo-fascist!. There you go, now I've said somethign "defamatory" about you, right? Socratesone (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
