User talk:Karl fallout4

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Karl fallout4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Regards, Esowteric+Talk 17:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Lebensraum, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2018 (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).

Karl fallout4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. I have my own email address and reddit account. I do not know who I am accused of being and I have never owned a wiki account before this (unless you count my tf2 one). I understand that my account has been blocked because I have been suspected as another account because I added and altered some content article on the article on Lebensraum, as he/she possibly has as well. I understand that I have to consult the talk page of the article before I alter and/or add controversial content on a wikipedia page.Karl fallout4 (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Taking a look at your contributions, it's clear you are actively attempting to harm Wikipedia. Sockpuppet or not, this isn't the place for you. Go troll someplace else. Yamla (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2018 (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).

Karl fallout4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't trying to harm and/or troll wikipedia. Dlohcierekim, Wikipedia also says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"(see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). As for the source, I have can site some books. For the Soviet article I can cite "Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov. For Lebensraum I can cite "The Bad War" by M.S King. Although I disagree with some points in the books, they are still source material. As it is a significant minority view, couldn't it be published? Regarding the content I altered in Lebensraum, it consisted of mostly changing single words like from "did" to "may have". For the content that I did completely alter, I fully apologize for it as I considered it (the content) to be incorrect at the time. As I have said before, I will address the talk page before editing. Also, it says that I was given a warning for disruptive editing in Lebensraum. I was blocked on suspicion of being an alt account of someone else.Karl fallout4 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you cannot distinguish between a reliable source and self-published conspiracy theory drivel, Wikipedia is not for you. Changing "did" to "may have" is deliberately sowing doubt where the facts are well-established and is not acceptable. Huon (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2018 (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).

Karl fallout4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(Redacted) This is censorship, guys. Karl fallout4 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a private website, we have exactly zero obligations to help you spread Nazi propaganda. 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. Max Semenik (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2018 (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.

I have revoked talk page access. None of the above addresses your conduct, and none of it is backed up by reliable sources. Rather, it confirms that you don't understand what makes a source reliable. Huon (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion[edit]

Bit of a revisionist, eh? Please read and explain in your own words the following statement: "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please tell us how it applies to your situation and what you will do instead going forward. Even if it had not been determined that you are socking, you'd ave been blocked for disruptive editing and adding unsourced content while removing sourced content, so please take that into consideration while appealing your block. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]