User talk:97.112.201.44

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Kompress0 (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

September 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ricardo López (stalker) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ricardo López (stalker) was changed by 97.112.201.44 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.968633 on 2020-09-12T14:30:24+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ricardo López (stalker); 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

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 Ricardo López (stalker), you may be blocked from editing. Removing the sourced material because it does not agree with your interpretation of the recording smacks of disruption to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Ricardo López (stalker)) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi - you've been given lots of links to policies and guidelines regarding sources. The fundamental things you need to understand are that we don't interpret primary sources for ourselves, we rely on others to do that in secondary sources, and then base our content on what they say. So, if a generally respectable news service looks at the video, listens to what someone said, and then report on that, we go with what they say even if we think they are wrong. If there are secondary sources that conflict with one another, it may be necessary to discuss those differing viewpoints, but if there's just one interpretation in secondary sources, that's what we go with - end of story.

I come across this in my own editing sometimes - I write about historic buildings, and have sometimes stood in front of a building with an architectural guide in my hands and thought to myself "this guide is wrong". I don't know why it's wrong - perhaps the author miswrote his notes when he visited the building, perhaps it's a typo, or whatever - but that doesn't matter. When I write the article about the building on Wikipedia, I am forced to go with what the guidebook says unless I can find another book covering it which gives more accurate information. It's the nature of what we do here - we aren't permitted to use our own interpretations, our own research, our own knowledge - we are summarising the content of reliable secondary sources.

So - go look for other sources that support your view, and bring them to the article talk page if you find them - if they exist, I expect you'll be able to get others to agree to change the content. Otherwise, drop this and go do something else, but you'll be blocked again and for longer if you continue trying to push this through. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add content to closed discussions on administrative noticeboards. If you do that again I'll block you from that page too. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ricardo López (stalker). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

The MOST that can be said about Ricardo Lopez's final word(s) is that they are incoherent

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. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 15 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was making useful contributions. The page as it stands is inaccurate. By the logic of "But it conforms to secondary sources" then I can find secondary sources that say Mark Zuckerberg is a lizard person and the earth is flat. Does that mean I can edit the respective pages to reflect those secondary sources? It is completely fair to say that his last words were incoherent.

Decline reason:

If you want to post your own personal analysis, you can start a blog. You can't do that on this website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 16 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It's no more or less my own personal analysis than it is a personal analysis being sourced for the quote that exists on the page. The audio is so unclear, in fact, that it's been deemed necessary to put in the source to NOT change the quote to a line that people obviously continuously hear. I thought accuracy was paramount for wiki. Does a real encyclopedia cite sources as long as what they claim is in line with the source or do they only cite sources when they're more than reasonably sure that those sources are accurate?

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason you were blocked, indeed it demonstrates very clearly that you don't understand why what you were doing it disruptive, and that you will probably do it again. If you make another request like this, your ability to edit this page will likely be revoked. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:47, 16 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I completely understand why I was blocked, pure hypocrisy. Once my block is expired I fully expect to be able to edit the page on COVID-19 to have it say the virus was manufactured by the illuminati as a depopulation measure since I can cite *A* secondary source saying that. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. I just want the wiki article to reflect reality, that's it. The reality is that it's unclear what he said. That should be more important than being in line with what someone else said he said. Watch the video and tell me you can decipher what he said to any reasonable certainty.

Have 10 people listen to it and see if you don't get three different answers.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring. On the content, you may well be right, but you need to establish consensus on the talk page, instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 07:15, 16 September 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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.