User talk:Lancepickell

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lancepickell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Babymissfortune. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nick Fuentes have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

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 recently 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.

- Mr X 🖋 12:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Culture of Critique series have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Materialscientist (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not make a credible claim of significance. This draft would be subject to speedy deletion in article space. If this draft is resubmitted in its current form or a similar form, it should be nominated for deletion.

This draft has no substantive content.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lancepickell! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Jack Posobiec. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello all, I am sincerely sorry for my editing behavior, I agree my contributions have been biased, I neverreceivedd a warning though. Is there any way I could get a second chance? I promise all my future edits will be unbiased. I had no idea I could get blocked like this.... Can I please get a second chance? Lancepickell (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You had multiple chances to revise your editing when you were warned it was unacceptable. Please find another site on which to promote your obvious agenda. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:52, 18 February 2019 (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.

Please read this entire page. You have been warned in various ways five times previously. So, why did you say that you had never been warned? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can go an start a new account with a new IP address, but thats not what I want to do. Can i delete all my changes and start editing in an unbiased way? I NEVER GOT A WARNING. I went through a small white nationalist ideology but have gon back to my traditional christian viewpoint. Please can I get a second chance.

Trying to start up a new account under a new IP is a sure-fire way to get yourself banned (significantly more difficult to come back from than a block), so I would recommend against it. You also openly self-identified as alt-right less than a week ago, so your sudden change of ideology is somewhat hard to believe... Yunshui ^雲 _水 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a bias in some of my naive immature edits. I would argue that a lot of the things I was correcting was indeed leftist biased articles. I defended ilhan Omar's page last week against unfair portrayals, Am I truly alt-right coming to the defense of a Black muslim female democrat? I understand the Rights ideology more than everyone else on here so when I see people trying to label Jack Posobiec or Mike Cernovich as Alt-Right, I correctly change it. Im new to this so some left winger can go find some buzzfeed article written by some idiot that doesn't know what they're talking about. I hate Posebic and Cernovich but will correctly change something that is OBVIOUSLY incorrect. Just because somebody is a conspiracy theorist and retweeted a pizzagate story doesn't make them "Alt-Right".

If you want my ideology I am a White 21 year old male from North Carolina. I am an independent. I study history. I believe in traditional christian moral frameworks. I loathe neoconservatism and social darwinism arguments on the right. I also loathe white male hating on the left.

Are you trying to say people with ideology can't function in society and cant change articles. I promise I will never make an argument without citations