User talk:Getivan

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Institute for Creation Research[edit]

On Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources (WP:RS). Theroadislong (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Institute for Creation Research, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Institute for Creation Research, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Institute for Creation Research 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. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to give you a WP:NOTHERE block, as you seem to be here to fight an ideological battle and not collaborate with others to arrive at a consensus. If another admin wants to change the block, I wouldn't object, but I thought you should have the chance to change your ways. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) If you are an Admin, then why didn't you escalate to Conflict of Interest? I made enough reports to make that clear. This is not a matter of mutual discussion. It's a clear conflict of interest, and it requires moderation. I'm gonna spend the week to make sure the right people know and understand that you aren't doing your job.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Getivan (talk • contribs)

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you aren't interested in a discussion, I have change the block as noted above. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If personal attacks continue, you will lose access to this page too. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am making it a mission in life to find the right people to report you two. What you are doing is DEFINITELY against Wikipedia Guidelines. Either correct YOUR behavior, or eventually you are going to get CAUGHT.

I am making it a mission in life to find the right people to report you two.

It'll be a lifetime chore, because those people don't exist. And they don't exist because you're wrong about, well, EVERYTHING: the Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia policy, reliable sources, the science, and even the meaning of basic terms like "conflict of interest" (slapping the adjective "clearly" onto something doesn't automagically make it true).

In short, no one -- and I mean, literally, NO ONE -- is going to do your bidding, because you clearly -- adjective used correctly there -- don't know what you're talking about. Some random admin might -- might! -- take mercy on you and unblock you for a second chance IF -- IF! -- you show some signs of understanding, but even the odds for that are slim. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, it doesn't take a genius to see that, that page is riddled with conflict-of-interest. You gotta be deluded to not see that.

I'm amazed it hasn't been reported, already. People clearly aren't paying attention. It should be illegal to assume control of the public page of any private company, and slap onto it whatever a few (Personal attack removed) people deem necessary. Pretty sure libel and slander is illegal, and there's some iffy stuff in there, which is definitely NOT neutral or factual. Wikipedia does have guidelines for protecting against this kind of corruption, but apparently there's nothing for protect against anti-christ moderation. So, we'll see how far I get in a week.

Guy, it doesn't take a genius to see that you don't have even the TINIEST clue what you're talking about. At all. I mean, I even linked you to the Wikipedia page on conflicts of interest -- which discusses how the real-world meaning of the concept applies to Wikipedia -- and all you can do is repeat the the self-serving, made-up version you pulled straight from your ass, along with adding more terms with definitions you made up.

So, we'll see how far I get in a week. You've gotten nowhere and will continue to get nowhere. Reality doesn't change just because you yell random scary words at it. Perhaps you should have listened to what everyone -- literally everyone -- has been telling you. --Calton | Talk 15:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Unethical block reason to begin with. The encyclopedia entry in question is riddled with conflict of interest, and upon complaint, the admin's response was to block me, rather than to help escalate the issue to the right departments for review. This article needs to be locked, and reviewed by neutral parties. Derogatory language is being used on the companies page, and the citations provided are from a rival organization. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Don't ban me. Provide support for neutral and fair language in the offending document. Getivan (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At the moment, we're not interested in discussing the state of an article with you, we're interested in hearing about the behaviour which has led to your block and how that behaviour will not be repeated should you be unblocked. The article can be sorted out later, but right now I'd like you see some explanation why you thought edit warring to keep your preferred version of an article was acceptable as opposed to discussing the changes, and why you then felt it was necessary to throw personal attacks at other users. I currently see no indication that behaviour would stop if you were unblocked. stwalkerster (talk) 12:28, 7 December 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.

You need to read WP:GAB real soon !! Good luck. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I have redacted a personal attack on this page. The edit which added the attack can be seen here. Best, Darren-M talk 12:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that you may also have to explain Pretty sure libel and slander is illegal [...] So, we'll see how far I get in a week. We're not especially tolerant of legal threats or things that could appear as such. Blablubbs|talk 12:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize the page you linked to me makes it very clear that Libelous content should be deleted, right? It's against Wikipedia's Terms, and that's the whole point. What you are doing on that content is illegal! You can call it a threat, if you want, but it's Wikipedia's terms that you should be banning, if that's gonna be your attitude. Getivan (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

You guys seem to have a REAL hard time with the logic of this timeline. I signed-up to Wikipedia, because I see some major corruption on a company page. I attempted to make some edits, then refresh the page, and they're still there. I edit again, then I go back, and look later, and they're reverted. After I discovered the message region, I the guy who MADE the edits is telling me that it's Wikipedia policy to label things as "Pseudoscience". Talk about propaganda and delusion. This guy threatens to ban me for making edits. Assuming he's just a regular user, and not understanding how this works, I continued making the corrections. Pardon me for not understanding that you guys actually enforce corruption, here, because I assumed that I would have some sort of opportunity for fair representation, but that's not how it works, here, obviously. Some other Administrator appears, and bans me, rather than addressing the problem. Let me make it clear that I don't feel, and nor would most people, that they are doing anything unethical, here. I think it's unethical to sidestep the issue, and make it about ME rather than about the offending content. It's not about me, and this frankly feels like a petty witch-hunt at this point, because if you guys were responsible, you'd be focused on the offending content, which is riddled with conflict of interest. No users, especially new users, should be getting silenced and punished, when they stumble onto this kind of problem. I've used Wikipedia since it was born, and I do digital marketing and design for a living, but never, until this day, have I ever observed a need to make an edit on Wikipedia. That's how bad this piece of content is. Please stop calling my statement a "personal attack". It's your job to be administrators of a fair and ethical conscience. All administrators need to be held accountable, and I'm still going to have him reported, one way or another. That's not a personal attack. That's a response to unethical treatment from the staff, here. I want this escalated to a SuperAdmin, if such a thing exists, because this is ridiculous. A user shouldn't be blocked from even being able to defend themselves against corrupt admins. The page in-question needs to be escalated to the Conflict of Interest section, as well. Some of you guys are playing games with me, at this point, and it needs to stop. This ban was unethical to begin with. Getivan (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia obviously isn't suitable to your goals and you'll be happier someplace else. Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 14:12, 7 December 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.

Oh dear me. You didn't follow my advice to read WP:GAB and now, I predict you will lose your ability to even edit this page. Good luck. I'll pray for you at Friday Prayers. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were a bot. According to that page, everyone in this thread should be getting a ban. This is a very simple issue. A companies page is the victim of conflict of interest. Why haven't any of you simply made a report for the page on my behalf? I'll tell you why, because you are engaged in a conflict of interest. Following the logic, here, that's considered a personal attack. Yeah... that's pure delusion. At the end of the day, the page needs to get reported, and dealt with. Getivan (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand a great many aspects of what is going on here, but it's clear you aren't open to being corrected on them. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are making it about me being personally corrected is proving my point. Witch Hunt. The issue is the content, and it's got nothing to do with me whatsoever. The content is still corrupted with heavily biased sources, and I don't see you doing anything about it. Isn't that supposed to be your job? Right now, this piece of content is being destroyed by a conflict of interest. Do something about it. Getivan (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'll try this. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Everything and everyone has biases, including me. It summarizes what independent reliable sources state, so if those sources are biased, it will be reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to bias. Wikipedia also gives due weight to how reliable sources describe a subject. For example, if the majority of source describe something as a pseudoscience, Wikipedia will as well, while placing less emphasis on how else a subject is described. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for libel, if you are associated with the organization you are editing about and can act on its behalf to address libelous content, you should follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL, and you don't need to be unblocked to do that. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I was in the process of writing a much lengthier decline, but I would add that you will need to address your block evasion too in any unblock request made here (if your TPA is granted again) or at UTRS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

A reminder: you've been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Not your account: you, personally. Coming back without logging in or under a new name doesn't change that and will be a transparently obvious attempt to evade your block -- like you tried here -- and whatever account name, IP, or IP range you use will be blocked immediately. This is not Wikipedia's first rodeo. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]