User talk:MisinformationFix

Welcome[edit]

Hello, MisinformationFix, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

MisinformationFix, good luck, and have fun. Renat 17:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Judicial Watch. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Calton | Talk 14:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Judicial Watch while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Calton | Talk 06:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[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 shown interest in post-1992 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.

——Serial 19:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't even know why I was blocked. According to the logs I was blocked for saying the word campaign instead of Foundation. Every claim I made was supported by Microsoft approved news outlets (Specifically the New York Times and NPR). If they are not verified sources, what are? Further more, the claims I edited had 0 sources to support them. How is a claim with no source more valid than a claim with multiple sources?MisinformationFix (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are clearly here to push a political viewpoint and not collaborate with others in summarizing what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2021 (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 provide an example? Is the New York Times not a valid source?

Again, every claim i made was sourced. MisinformationFix (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please provide an example? Is the New York Times not a valid source? Again, every claim i made was sourced MisinformationFix (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can't really pass on the merits of your claim when all you did was repeat your original argument, which failed. And per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (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 edit paints JW in a much more favorable light than the sources state. And you have attempted to add it other times instead of discussing it on the article talk page with other editors. It's not up to me, but I oppose unblocking you without a topic ban from American politics related articles. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did discuss it with others. Username was Soibangla, and even though my sources supported what I was saying I still decided not to re-edit the misinformation on your website. So not only has 2 administrators committed political discrimination which is illegal in my state, you've also committed defamation by calling me a liar politically. And you've still yet to provide a single example of any wrongdoing. Please provide your name so we can settle this in court =] MisinformationFix (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing request due to legal threats which are not permitted, see WP:LEGAL. See below for appeal options should you decide to withdraw the threats. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2021 (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.

June 2021[edit]

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.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not social media where laws like Florida's apply, even if restricting private entities involved in interstate commerce is constitutional. However, see WP:LEGAL if you wish to communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation about this. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]