User talk:Encyclopedia Logic

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Encyclopedia Logic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Fettlemap (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Perokema. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Immigration policy of Donald Trump 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. Thanks. Perokema (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LanHikari64. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm sorry, but claiming that a person "aims instead at destroying the conditions for organized human life" is not neutral. LanHikari64 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what if that is what they are in fact doing?

Then provide reliable sources, and find a quote that says it. Also, please sign your discussion posts with 4 tildes in a row at the end of your message. LanHikari64 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to James H. Fetzer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not “add my own point of view” or “breach the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia” in merely changing the order of two terms in the article, and your suggestion that I did proves you are merely here to harass me. Had you read the article prior to editing it, you would have known Fetzer is primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist and the content of the article reflects this. Please stop harassing me.Encyclopedia Logic (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you are clearly WP:NOTHERE not just because of recent bias but because of this edit. That is your choice but I think you have already received sufficient warnings about your behavior from multiple editors. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so when you are proven wrong, you simply change the topic? What has this got to do with your accusation that altering the ordering of two terms “breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia” or whether Fetzer is primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist or philosopher? I accepted the reversion of the edit you have now shifted the goalposts to. Encyclopedia Logic (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James H. Fetzer; 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. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tread carefully please[edit]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An 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/100.37.244.252, 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.

LanHikari64 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely for evading a block on IP 100.37.244.252. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me, friend[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Although it is true that I have been accused of high thoughtcrime by the thinkpol, I am an innocent man. Consult my edits and you will see my many good works.

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. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 17 February 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.

False socks[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Help! Kingshowman here. Some foolish administrator has placed a horde of socks on my page that aren’t mine. This is the only sock I have used relatively recently (the last several months.) I will speak slowly and make it easy for you by identifying the socks which are not mine (and furthermore, which bear not even a faint resemblance to me in style, grace, content, tone, verve, charm, and wit:) *User:Bango404 *User:BridgetMidgat *User:BubbleCrabe *User:DarkFaithDou *User:HardKnock43 *User:Helium402 *User:Knowledgeablecitizen *User:Knowledgeablecitizen2 *user:Mew-o.o-Mew *User:Optim.usprime *user:PlayCardz *user:Rosgiull *User:Steven655 *User:Suffusien of Yellow *User:Suffusion of Yellew *user:ToBoFree *user:Twerk000 *user:Courrecx *User:Dominique Flowers *User:Dreadstor *User:Fabuloeurs *User:Fabulouars *User:Fabulouers *User:Fabuloures *user:HowieHerow * user:Jubby2FisH * User:Kiieu *User:Kiinu *User:Kineu *user:Mizau *user:MonkeyEdoas *User:Passengarpigeon *User:Passengorpigeon *User:SeattleSportzFan *User:Sportsfan429 I can confirm that all accounts I have not listed above on my page are indeed mine. Please help right this great wrong and remove the false socks from my page. Ask any editor familiar with my many fine works, such as Favonian, whether these supposed socks are mine and they’d be able to tell you in 2 minutes flat that they aren’t, friend. Or better yet, use your own eyes. In no way shape or form do these supposed socks resemble me in the slightest. This is one of the most appalling displays of administrative incompetence I have ever seen in my years at the encylopedia. Stay safe.Encyclopedia Logic (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock consideration here. Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 13:18, 29 April 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.

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.