User talk:KnownFactsChecker

June 2022

Hello, I'm SpacemanSpiff. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 15:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reverting that it is an Indian religion.Which it is not.India currently has only been called India for the last 200 years and before then there were different states, Sikhism was created 500 years ago so the claim that it is an Indian religion is a flat out lie. KnownFactsChecker (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We follow what the reliable sources say, not your personal opinion. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources KnownFactsChecker (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ones cited in the article (you should know, you are deleting them). MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just do research on when the British took over Southern Asia and when Sikhism was founded KnownFactsChecker (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are your Sources? KnownFactsChecker (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just do research on when the British took over Southern Asia and when Sikhism was founded KnownFactsChecker (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The group called 'Indian religions' are named after the subcontinent, not the country. Stop deleting valid, properly sourced content. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS-alert

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 shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. gadfium 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here I made a joke on the Lord page and that should have been a earring as the changes I made on the Sikhism page was correct and I have only made 1 mistake and 1 joke I won’t do this again please unban me

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned. I took a look at your edits. Not one appeared to be constructive. Based on that, I see no benefit to Wikipedia in lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2022 (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.

Insert your reason to be unblocked here If you want to keep spreading misinformation don’t unblock me but I can guarantee as a historian who has studied origins of religions and if any evidence there is to them being true and all of my edits being constructive is a fact and I need to be unblocked KnownFactsChecker (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here If you want to keep spreading misinformation don’t unblock me but I can guarantee as a historian who has studied origins of religions and if any evidence there is to them being true and all of my edits being constructive is a fact and I need to be unblocked trust your sources all you want but please unblock me as I have a list of constructive edits and I am passionate about this project I have and chapter of my life. KnownFactsChecker (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't trust the sources, we summarize them. If you don't trust them, that's fine, we provide the sources so you and all readers can make that determination. If there are specific edits you wish to make, please give some examples. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2022 (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.

Or keep the block and add a time limit for it to end KnownFactsChecker (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user does not get to determine the length of the block. Having an end date does not do anything to convince us the disruptive behavior will end. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a brand new user who didn’t quite know the rules I believe I deserve a time limit for the block to end having read the rules just recently after my block I believe I as a new user deserves a unblock time limit KnownFactsChecker (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things wrong is on the Sikhism page that Sikhism is a pantheistic religion this is a lie, Sikhism is a monotheistic religion with pantheistic pantheistic elements. the user are also may more elements that need to be changed like on religion and wars this is just an example. KnownFactsChecker (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The end date of the block is "when you demonstrate that you understand the reason for it, tell us how you will change, and tell what edits you will make". Putting a specific end date on the block does not convince us that you understand the reason for it. When an admin unblocks a blocked user, they are putting themselves on the line that allowing that user to edit will benefit the encyclopedia and not turn loose a disruptive editor. You must convince an admin that you will benefit the project. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. In this case, the sources offered in the Sikhism article seem to say what is said here. If the sources are not accurately summarized, you will need to tell us how (once unblocked) on the article talk page, or offer other sources to support your claims. If the sources are accurately summarized, but in error, you will need to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ollie

This may seem unprofessional but I need to get an afins attention their is a user named Mr Ollie and all he does is undo people edits he adds nothing new to Wikipedia and is a nuisance he doesn’t look into other peoples sources and doesn’t understand his own please take a look into him and take action . Many Thanks KnownFactsChecker (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an unblock request, so I have removed the formatting. While blocked, you may only use this page to request to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but then no fails will come to my page and hear my concerns KnownFactsChecker (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to air your concerns about another user. You only have access to this page to request to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And your access will be removed if you continue. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh scary Doug You have no friends KnownFactsChecker (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]