User talk:Raleigh80Z90Faema69

Hello, Raleigh80Z90Faema69, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Davidelit. 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 Aceh 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. Thank you. Davidelit (Talk) 00:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand what you are saying and in all honesty the only reason I thought to make the edit that I made was because of the opinion that I read regarding the interpretation of a God caused incident. It was my intent to be neutral as the point I was trying to make was that if some people perceived this Tsunami as an act of God for not following religious law it is entirely possible that a considerable majority of the rest of the world would have thought the exact opposite way, by which I mean because this region is still forcing a terrible, fear inducing, humiliating to women and counterproductive to the psychological health of innocent human beings set of laws..... Well maybe God hit this region with the Tsunami because of the outdated system of laws being enforced, not because they weren't being followed closely enough. Again it is of course a complicated subject and in reality I wouldn't force an opinion of my interpretation of God into any Wikipedia article as they are supposed to be fact based and backed up with legitimate references, but in this case I felt it was reasonable to at least offer an alternative point of view to the opinions that were shown on the page. I'm not certain that erasing my comment was entirely appropriate although perhaps you could have modified it to have been stated in a less harsh way, but facts are still facts and if one group of people who believe the Tsunami struck because people were disobeying God's law there is going to be another group of people who think the Tsunami hit because a group of people so insulted God by having the audacity to think they knew what God would want as law. Be this as it may I am not responsible for this article and I am not a citizen of Indonesia so my frame of reference is not going to be the same as yours, but perhaps it would be advisable to leave my post up because there might be human beings who live in this region who live in fear and terror every day because of an archaic, subhuman system of religious laws being forced upon them in a modern world and perhaps by reading something like an alternative to what is written will be a small step in giving them the courage to stand up for themselves to the point they join together and decide to live under a set of laws that the people decide is best when taking into account their heritage and their history, and hence not have to live in fear that they broke man's interpretation of God's law because that sort of horror is unimaginable to freedom loving hard working good people as I'm sure deep down the majority of people living in Indonesia are Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Raleigh80Z90faema69[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Tour de France, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Matthews and Adam Yates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joachim Halupczok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sean Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joop Zoetemelk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raymond Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cinderella (sports), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superbowl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arizona–Mexico League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuck Carr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you believe that the Bernal biography is so evidently suited to being a geography lesson THAT IT NEEDS TO BE STATED IN CAPITALS. What exactly is it that is so important about the incidental fact that the place where he was born, but never lived, happens to be the national capital? Why is your trust in the links system so low that you do not think that those who might want to learn more about Bogotá can use the link? And what is your source for the 89%/84% data you called upon? Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a stupid question, but it is something that is over thought and misdirected.... Because thousands of people will look at Egan Bernal, and therefore the opportunity has presented itself for Mr. Bernal's page to teach people about the country he is from, which is Colombia, and by adding this in many people will have another opportunity within this article to learn something they may not have known....

It is not up to you to decide who learns what information on what article and as long as the information is relevant to the person being discussed then why not include it..... Note that I do not mean relevant in the sense you 'might be' thinking where you consider what is relevant to what article for what reason but rather I mean relevant in the sense that if "it is a fact" then it is relevant and any interpretation of relevance beyond that should be irrelevant....

Yes this even goes to deeper levels of a hypothetical scenario like: if he lived in Pomona, Spain for 6 months when he was in middle school it could be included because it would factual and true information whereas the argument for irrelevance being "it doesn't matter where he lived when he was 12 years old" is just pointless and annoying because it does not matter whether or not it matters as long as it is a fact and there is a place for it within the article..... If there happens to be no place for it then an editor can create one or leave it omitted.....

You shouldn't reject or remove certain information just because you don't "see the point" of including it. And there should always be as many links as possible.... The links are the reason readers come here and they should be given the opportunity to go in as many directions as possible on each and every article.... Which is of course my opinion just as every single thought and edit of every single editor ties into their opinion on some level they may not even be aware of. But in any case, it's not my place to say what goes on Egan Bernal's page so I'll just let it be.... unless of course I come across some relevant information to add, or irrelevant information to delete. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well.... First of all it's a relevant fact, 2nd of all it informs casual enthusiasts who have no knowledge of Colombia what the capital of Colombia is, so by the very act of looking up this guy who they heard won the Tour de France they now have also learned what the capital city of Colombia is.... It's how wikipedia works.... It teaches you things you didn't expect to know while simultaneously giving you the exact information you were looking up..... Comprende hermano..... Muy bueno... Furthermore when someone like seacactus takes the time to write 2,500 characters of relevant information instead of just deleting all of it because it doesn't fit in with what your opinion of the article should be maybe you could have the damn consideration to edit it down a little, or reword some of it, or possibly delete some of it and leave some of it not just decide hey I'm kevinmce and i decide what's important I'm erasing everything.... you know, being really lazy & condescending instead of maybe being polite and helpful by taking 20-30 minutes to edit the edit of another contributor Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You plainly don't understand the purpose of wikipedia articles at all. The article should contain information pertinent to the subject, and links allow people to find details of related subjects. So cut the patronising tone, and start trying to make Wikipedia better, rather than clogging it up with irrelevant matter, regardless of how true it might be.

And you still haven't provided a source for the percentages you cited, or did you just make them up? Kevin McE (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, no no those were not made up.... Researching stats and numbers is terribly frustrating and can never be cited or proven so it's often times counterproductive because the people who challenge these stats and numbers would rather just delete them rather than verify if they might be true.... I know from personal experience that you are incredibly familiar with removing far far far more information than you will take the effort to add, expand or make something better..... Though I'm of the opinion it's out of sheer laziness on your end because if someone adds information, but you would have to add even more information to make it fit exactly within the guidelines and rules that the original editor may not have known about.... Then why not just delete it... Because that's easier....

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed fine point on the purpose of Wikipedia articles which should always be informative, to the point, properly cited and on every occasion the 100% verifiable truth.... Now the only reason this conversation is taking place is as a consequence to the choices you made when you decided to remove numerous other posts while offering really condescending & unnecessary reasons instead of constructive & or helpful reasons..... It wouldn't be happening otherwise..... And like all other wikipedia users I do not care what you think wikipedia is for any more than I care what Jimmy Wales thinks Wikipedia is for.... I care about what I think wikipedia is for, what I use it for, why I read it and bounce from page to link to person to place to thing and as far as edits go there are obviously rules put in place by the rightful owners of this page and personally I take it very seriously and never change a page unless I know the post I'm making can be proven as factual & it is relevant in nature to the page I'm editing. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military history of Vermont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revolutionary War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geoff Sanderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AHL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The photo that you talked about in the 1980 Tour article ([1]) shows Gerrie Knetemann holding Zoetemelk's hand, not Raas. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And oddly enough he is way way more excited and amazed about what just happened than Zoetemelk is, which makes sense if you've ever seen Knetemann at any finish line where he has won... I'm surprised nobody has fixed it, Wikipedia's version of Tour de France history is nothing like French "actual" Tour de France history but it takes time to translate and even find apparently.... And thanks I honestly did not think Knetemann wore glasses that big, plus I could not find an answer anywhere on the internet (didn't know where to look) and it in a blur it looks like Raas. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then this Tour of California thing.... Idk what country your from but it sucks that America kinda sorta almost had a race that seemed like it was starting to actually matter a little bit with all the bigger name riders who didn't want to ride the Giro, and now it's cancelled....apparently it went the way of the Tour de Trump.... Anyways thx again on 1980 Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Stephen Strasburg. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.... In fact I use the editing description section as a tool to communicate and have done so rather frequently because in a way I interpreted this description section as a place to have brief discussion on the article being edited.... With this being said I will certainly try to use the talk section for any discussion of substance in the future as I am fairly new to this editing business and am not yet fully familiar with how it all works, but in the case of the Strasburg article.... I mean Jesus God how can an article on one of the biggest stars in the sport be allowed to look so unprofessional for a period of 12 hours? As such I felt I would call out the glaring redundancy to the point that it was either someone not paying attention.... Or might have even been vandalism. Fortunately after I made my remarks someone quickly came along and fixed it. I would have fixed it myself but on that particular page it seemed like it might have been a younger fan doing some of the editing of his or her favorite player and I didn't want to be greedy and write the entire section because there are plenty of other editors out there who like contributing and I was trying to give that person the chance to edit the section into a more professional sounding way. In any case thanks for the clarification and have a pleasant remainder of the year! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on my talk page bc I was going to revert the edit regarding Hinault wearing the leaders jersey in every tour and then try to get a discussion as to why this does or does not matter but I'm going to research more early cycling victory first as it may have been done by a few riders 50, 60, 70 years ago

The reason I made that edit atop Hinault's page is as follows.

1 He wore the leaders jersey in every Grand Tour he ever entered 2 I was unable to find any other time trial/prologue specialist or Grand Tour winning rider, including Bartali, Coppi, Anquetil, Binda, Merckx, Bobet, Thevenet, Gimondi, Visentini, Fignon, Indurain, Delgado, (armstrong), Zoetemelk, Heras, Contador, Nibali, Froome etc.... Who did wear the Leaders Jersey in every grand tour they ever entered 3 if Bernard Hinault is the only rider in the entire history of the sport to do this, it is significant in the sense that it never happened before and will probably never happen again because nobody comes in and dominates the Tour/Vuelta/Giro on their first entry like Merckx, Hinault or Fignon did, not even Egan Bernal.... Of course it could happen that someone will come along and dominate every grand tour they enter, but it hasn't in 40 years. 4 how did nobody else notice this (or) is this not a big deal because who cares if Bernard Hinault had the lead after the prologue in 1984 and then got destroyed by Fignon 5 I'm just saying if only one rider in the entire history of the sport has accomplished something that nobody else.... In the entire history of the sport has ever accomplished.... It becomes significant.... He wore the leaders jersey in 13 grand tours.... More so, considering it's unlikely to happen again in the foreseeable future as the only other riders who could potentially make this claim have yet to ride a Grand Tour. 6 why/how would you source something that is very easy to look up as there are very few other riders to investigate aside from time trial specialists who could have wore yellow early in every Tour, (which Boardman, Dennis, Marie, Knetemann and Tony Martin did not) and dominant GC riders who were good enough to win every Tour, of which Hinault.... Is the only rider in the history of cycling to wear the leaders Jersey in every Grand tour he ever entered Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:16

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for all your edits on Tour de France. But try to add sources for all statements that you make. You can use the template bar on top of the edit window to make it a little bit easier. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I only edit on my phone bc I don't have a laptop or PC with internet, so I have to type in the cites after copying and pasting the source webpage.... Good point though, sometimes I think things should be common knowledge in regards to history but you're right most history is not common knowledge.... I went and put a cite in on Anquetil-Poulidor and will do so in the future on edits that aren't easily verifiable stats or numbers Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even easily verifiable things have to be sourced. Basically, every statement that is not "Sunday is a day of the week" needs to be sourced. I know, it's a lot, especially on the phone... I'd really recommend to use a computer, since there you can use the templates to add the sources in a proper format, not just the URLs. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good comparison on Sunday's.... i need to learn how to cite actual books as well, I've never cited an actual book, only online articles. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additions such as this you made must cite the source where you got the information from. There's no two ways about it, if you don't it will be removed, however important you think it is. The 1998 Tour is undergoing a featured article review and cannot have any unsourced statements. BaldBoris 06:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Boris.... Here's the trouble I'm having with incidents like this, and it's not the first time as I ran into similar issues with the 1990 Tour.... Regarding the morning the Festina team got expelled I watched multiple videos from 1998 which explained how these incidents played out and that's what prompted me to make the edits I made.... The problem I ran into is for whatever reason you can not cite videos as sources on wikipedia.... I've tried and everytime I've used a video as a reference it got removed.... Even though it was a link to the actual tv coverage of the Tour.... Knowing I couldn't use the tv coverage as a reference I went searching Google for news articles regarding Richard Virenque and 1998 but unfortunately American google came up with results for Lance Armstrong and news regarding the 2020 tour none of which was useful.... What should I do in these situations.... The information I added is easily verifiable simply by watching the TV coverage from Paul Sherwen and Phil Liggett.... But if I can't cite The two of them, and I can't find any news articles? Then what? So I didn't include a reference Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69 and BaldBoris: You can cite those videos, if you really have to, if you find the actual physical videos and the release information on them, but not the YouTube links. TV coverage can not be used as a source, since it is not verifiable. At least not legally. Those videos are on YouTube, yes, but they are there illegally. You cannot link to that and make yourself potentially complicit in copyright infringement! Also, I feel that your edit once more had a problem with wording. You cannot write "held his now infamous emotional press conference where he and the rest of the team grudgingly accepted the expulsion". Who decides that the press conference is "now infamous"? You? Is there a source for that assertion? How do you know Virenque accepted "grudgingly". No source for that either. Please write in a more neutral manner. This is not a journalistic book about the 1998 Tour, it is an encyclopedia. You should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary for pointers on what language should be used on Wikipedia. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see I always thought that youtube videos should be valid sources because by the very act of viewing the video a person knows whether or not the information being cited is legitimate and accurate.... The copyright thing I was under the impression that youtube is incredibly diligent about removing anything that might be copyright infringement but I suppose you're right.... Unless it comes from NBC Sports or directly from the UCI account or a teams account then how can anyone be certain that legal permission to use the footage in question was ever given..... But I have to disagree with you on my edit as there was very good reason for the way I wrote that particular edit.... I used words like grudgingly because the team refused to accept the expulsion initially, then they chose to tell their riders that they could defy the ban and show up for their start time and they met with Tour officials on numerous occasions before grudgingly accepting the expulsion and I would honestly say that Virenque in tears before the press is not exactly taking the expulsion in stride or with ease.... He and they grudgingly accepted it..... Then I used infamous because Virenque was the subject of numerous television skits and a famous puppet show in France even created a Virenque puppet with a bunch of needles sticking out of it as a featured character and that incident of his teary eyed press conference became part of French pop culture and still to this day if you played that press conference video everyone would know what it was from.... In France. I understand the necessity to be neutral and objective for historical purposes but I was trying to be as accurate as possible and give a more accurate and detailed account of the events of that particular day Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm at an incredible disadvantage being in America Zwerg.... I went hunting and looking for old news reports on google and bing to try to find an article I could cite as a reference yesterday.... The best I could find was a 20years after article from the BBC and cyclingweekly but they only mentioned the big stuff like Voet getting caught at the border crossing, Virenque in tears at the conference and the riders strike when the police started raiding hotels.... The actual substance and detailed info I only found from the TV reports as it was actually happening.... I think both you and Boris are in Europe and you guys have access to far more information on this sport than the search engines in America will ever come up with Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: There are plenty of newspaper archives around that you can use, we both do that as well. Delpher for instance, or El Pais's website, so forth. Also, you are actually at an advantage because you could get English-speaking books far easier than I ever could, being in Germany. There are great books on the Giros and Tours of the 70s and 80s, they are on US Ebay, but the guy wants 25 bucks just to ship them to me...

When it comes to the wording, please check WP:EDITORIAL for which kind of words to avoid. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting because I've actually found old newspaper articles about some things I've wanted to use including a messed up one about the PDM team from 1991.... And you're right about the books, in fact I learned about the TDF like 15 years ago when I saw 8 Tour De France books about Lance Armstrong at my library and one Tour de France book about the Tour de France Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1984 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kim Andersen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1976 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page José Martins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1990 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1990 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Georg Totschnig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Rasmussen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Rasmussen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read edit notes, consider what they tell you about why an article is being edited, and see if you can learn from it. Oh, and don't shout in them: it just makes you look as though you lack rationality. Kevin McE (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking to you... (Personal attack removed) who attacked every contribution I made over the previous two months because you got mad about something you disagreed with, had a mental breakdown and went stalking my page to seek vengeance Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't make such allegations against somebody without being willing to substantiate it. It also makes very little sense for you to go to my talk page and than state that you aren't talking to me. Kevin McE (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh80Z90Faema69, this comment is not WP:CIVIL and I think you need to apologise for it and WP:STRIKE it. Darren-M talk 18:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are a vandal. This conversation is overRaleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darren M... Kevinmce intentionally went out of his way to attack my contributions page.... He got mad about a trivial incident regarding Tour de France history and sought revenge by going to my contributions page and deleting edits that he knows were made in good faith, that he knows were truthful edits and it is clear and obvious that when someone goes right down another editors contribution page and deletes everything he thinks he can get away with it is intentional and that type of behavior belongs on a middle school playground and nowhere else.... It's a toxic and dangerous mindset to have and that sort of behavior should not be tolerated Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Another user KevinMce is going through my list of contributions and deleting them... Is there anything I can do about this? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best that you can do to resolve an issue is to engage in conversation. I have not reverted anything without consideration of the edit that I have changed. You have repeatedly claimed that I am motivated by anger over a previous conflict. Please let me know what you are referring to, and we might be able to resolve that. Kevin McE (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed). Seeking revenge because you got mad about something trivial and erased edits that were made in good faith, were verifiable as being true and were relevant to the article where the contributions were made. (Personal attack removed) Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: All your edits are clearly in good faith. No doubt about that. You are not intentionally vandalising wikipedia, or something like that. But most of your edits have some problems. In the beginning of your editing career, you added no sources, if I remember correctly; you said it was because you were editing from your phone and it was difficult. You have improved on this, I see that some of your recent edits have sources. But still you keep on adding opinions to articles. Not controversial opinions, I think most cycling experts would agree with the opinions that you add, but they are still opinions.

Around two years ago, you edited the 1977 Tour de France article, and I [removed some opinion and replaced some jargon, and you responded with an angry edit summary. I did not want to start a virtual fight, so I chose to ignore your contributions from then on. You have noticed two years ago that your contributions will be changed/reverted if they have no sources or contain jargon, but you still keep repeating the same behavior, and you are disappointed if somebody changes/reverts your contributions. I'm sorry, but Kevin McE is not the problem here, your contributions are the problem. But it's not a big problem: just learn to recognize opinions, and don't add them. Like you did on the [1977 Giro article]: you added relevant facts, used a source, and not too much jargon. Sure, improvements are possible, but you left the article in a better state than you found it. Kevin McE left that edit in place. Build on that. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeNavidad I appreciate the reply but the entire 1990 article I wrote was entirely erased and rewritten by someone else who did far more research than I did so I thanked them for it and said they did a good job... I went out of my way to thank the person who wrote the 1971 article as well, and the 1986 re-write and 1998 article I said we're very good rewrites and I have thanked maybe eight or nine people who have changed my articles or fixed mistakes I overlooked so what you're saying just isn't true.... I only get angry when changes are made for no legitimate reason whatsoever like this kevinmce has done..... And I cannot honestly see how editing in that Lance Armstrong denied Miguel Indurain the Triple Crown, Davis Phinney being the closest American to the green Jersey, that Fons de Wolf won a stage by 18 minutes, that Georg Totschnig finished 4th on his team while riding for Riis Ulrich and Bolts, how Taylor Phinney had the highest place of any American in Paris Roubaix in over a decade, how Freddy Maertens winning 28 out of 60 grand tour stages or the career Tour de France placings of Henry Anglade are opinions.... None of those are opinions.... They are facts that cannot be cited because they were arrived at by independent research..... Kevinmce is the problem here.... He got mad at an edit on the Tour de France history page and he took revenge by attacking all of these contributions because he thought he could get away with it.... He knew they were truthful edits, he knew they were made in good faith and he also knew they were impossible to source because they only could have been arrived at by researching through the hundreds of hundreds of different statistics on my own time to verify them....

I appreciate the reply but none of these edits are opinion..... Neither is the edit about Andy Schleck attacking with 24km to go on Port de Bales and then attacking again with 22km to go when his chain dropped... I had to watch the stage and while I was not able to cite this, anyone who takes the time to watch the stage... Or even that section of the stage could have verified it.... Then how is it ok for whoever wrote the 1971 to call Zoetemelk and Van Impe a wheelsucker but it's not ok when I made the relevant observation that Zoetemelk was entirely on his own his entire early career by citing he never had a single teammate place in the top 50 early in his career. I usually don't waste time with petty and childish people but it's important to call Kevinmce out for going out of his way to intentionally attack someone just to get revenge.... That type of mentality is a very serious problem and someone who behaves in this way isn't to be trusted Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The angry edit summary your referring to was indeed an angry edit summary.... It was kind of upsetting that including the riders who finished 11th through 30th place and beyond weren't included.... Now you're definitely right that the race overview is supposed to be brief and tell the most relevant facts but I think I was upset because that would mean some of the little guys and lesser known guys get left out of history.... And why not include them if all it takes to include them is the time and energy to research where they fit into the story.... This is definitely an opinion so I let that go Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pick out one thing: the Andy Schleck article. You added in the lead: "He was riding with incredibly good form". That is an opinion. You say he was wearing the Maillot Jaune: that is jargon. Just say what it means: he was leading the general classification. The Maillot Jaune link is even a redirect to the general classification article, make it easier for the readers! Your addition later on: "even though he likely knew that Schleck had a mechanical issue". That is an opinion! According to who did he "likely knew" that? It's true that you add some true facts to the article (the attacks at 24 and 22 km), but you surround it by opinions that don't belong in an encyclopedia. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... Personal opinions do not belong on wikipedia.... Where I'm having a hard time is how can you possibly think these are personal opinions of me as an editor.... Andy Schleck was riding with incredibly good form would be opinion if I said it.... Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen were saying it.... I'm not allowed to cite Paul Sherwen or Phil Liggett because they are the TV commentators who were calling the race live and I put into wikipedia what they were saying but I cannot quote this so it becomes my opinion I guess.... The Maillot Jaune is the jersey that the leader of the Tour de France wears.... It is an opinion that this should be included as often as possible so that readers who are just learning the sport understand what it is and what it means.... It is also an opinion that it is jargon and should be excluded.... That is absolutely your opinion that The Leader of the General Classification should be used instead.... In your opinion the leader of the race should be used instead of the rider wearing the Maillot Jaune.... Both of them mean exactly the same thing, but your right, it is my opinion that the Maillot Jaune should be used as often as possible in Tour de France articles because that is the term the French use to distinguish who is the leader of the General Classification of their race.... In your opinion the Leader of the General Classification should be used. The final opinion I added that Contador likely knew that Schleck dropped his chain.... You are right I should have been clear that Contador knew with 100% certainty that Schleck dropped his chain and so did Menchov, and so did Sanchez and anyone else on Port de Bales that day... They all knew with 100% certainty that Schleck had a mechanical and didn't crack... It is a fact.... Just as it is an absolute fact that Schleck was riding with incredibly good form which can be proven by the fact that he was wearing the Maillot Jaune as the leader of the General classification and he was at the front of the race making all the attacks.... This confirms the fact that he was riding With really good form.... But you can't accuse Contador of knowing with 100% certainty that Schleck had a mechanical.... Even though it is a fact that he did.... So you have to say that Contador most likely knew or imply that there was no way he couldn't have known.... Either way deleting and undoing these so called opinions, which are actually facts either taken from television broadcasts or post race television interviews that wikipedia refuses to allow as legitimate citations which denies both truth and accuracy. It gives a distorted and incorrect telling of the race and therefore makes the article worse and will result in it not being taken seriously by omitting relevant and critical points because instead of trying to find a way to describe the most pivotal and critical moments..... You'll just omit them altogether.

How do you even have an article about the 2010 Tour de France without saying that Andy Schleck was well on his way to winning the Tour riding with incredibly good form at the front of the peloton when he suffered a mechanical and was attacked by everyone else in the race, all of whom knew he suffered a mechanical because they saw his situation when they rode by him (but you can't say they knew because they'll never admit it so you have to say they most likely knew) because you don't go from leading at the front of the most difficult race in the world to suddenly coming to a dead stop.

This is my problem with wikipedia, every single attack Kevinmce made against me was a true statement, and a relevant statement... But they only could have been verified by researching the edits that were made.... I only included them because they added something to the article where they were included..... Meanwhile Davis Phinney is dying of Parkinsons disease and I decide to include that he is the only American to ever compete for the Green Jersey.... It is a fact.... But Kevinmce deletes it because to him it isn't really relevant.... Well maybe to Davis Phinney, his fans, American sprinter fans and fans who wouldn't have known anything about the Green Jersey unless they stumbled across his article while clicking around wikipedia it is relevant. His page barely has three paragraphs and I include another paragraph that is relevant and does matter but it gets erased because IN THE OPINION of some editors it isn't encyclopedic without even giving a reason why it isn't encyclopedic. Of course it's encyclopedic aside from Greg LeMond he is the only American to ever, in the entire history of the Tour de France, legitimately compete for the Green Jersey.

But you're right, I'm trying to contribute to the HISTORY of the Tour de France on Wikipedia and you're trying to contribute to the ENCYCLOPEDIA of the Tour de France on Wikipedia.... Two entirely different things.

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the future a good healthy argument/debate should be brought to the talk pages on matters that are borderline topics, possible opinions or controversial in some way Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the opinions that you added are wrong or controversial. I'm only saying that they are opinions, and opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. If it's relevant that Taylor Phinney is the only American rider to ever compete for the green jersey, find a source and add it. That's just how it works here... EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... This is decisively the truth.... The case of Phinney isn't an opinion it is decisively a fact that he is the only American to contest the Green Jersey as LeMond finished second as an afterthought while pursuing yellow but I was thinking about the Schleck example and you're right.... It was the opinion of the reporters.... another opinion of the reporter Phil Liggett as we all know is that "Lance Armstrong doesn't need EPO to go fast" and that opinion was later proved to be entirely wrong in every conceivable manner as Lance Armstrong did need EPO to go fast. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm explaining poorly, let me try again. Suppose the topic was Hitler. I think he was a bad person, so can I add to his article "Hitler was a bad person"? No! Even though practically everyone agrees with it, it is still an opinion. Stick to the facts. I can write "Hitler was the leader of the Nazis, responsible for millions of deaths", or even "Hitler is considered to be the most evil person of the twentieth century (link to source which shows that this is true)". But I should not put an opinion on Wikipedia, no matter how many people agree to that opinion. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And about Schleck: I thought using TV as source is allowed here, it's better than nothing. But then say: "Schleck's ride was described as 'very impressive' by TV commentators (LTV Tour show 20 July 2010)". Just show where you found the info, and make clear whose opinion it is! EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does makes sense.... I was going to say in regards to Hitler though, ok you can add a citation to some link which states Hitler is the most evil person of the 20th century but that's just going to be the opinion of whatever article you happen to be citing unless it's a history book of some sort but you could always find some other book that says Stalin or Chairman Mao was worse.... The TV suggestion I've never heard of and it is a very good idea for future reference.... If it's some attack Jan Ullrich made in the 2002 TDF then just post "OLN Network Tour de France Broadcast 13 July 2020" and then give the kilometer number within the race where the attack took place.

It's a matter of principle and effort I suppose, from the standpoint of this issue I should absolutely go over every one of these changes Kevinmce made, repost them with the source material I can eventually find by looking hard enough, and then just to be certain I'm being fair I should go pour over at least the previous 500 contributions Kevinmce has made and remove the one's that are even marginally questionable for the good of this website. It would be a valuable lesson in jargon and unnecessary editing but hey if you really think about it there is probably legitimate reason to delete 20-30% of every editors edits.... But if I spent this much time judging others I would have never had the time to write the novels I wrote, nevermind publishing or selling them that only comes if you connect to the right people.... but either way this got me thinking about opinions and the Tour de France let alone any other subject matter to be written about....

In reality the only legitimate way for your opinion to be valid regarding the Tour de France is if you were to be hired by a recognized media outlet to cover the Tour de France.... Or hired by a UCI Team to write for their social media page like Sunweb, Ineos, Movistar and Jumbo-Visma put out ads for once or twice a year on twitter..... Then the article you've written on the subject would become the actual facts that people are citing in their edits.

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you not to look at Kevin McE's 500 most recent contributions, it's a waste of your time, and will only make things worse. Be the better person: take one article, add content with sources, and ask Kevin McE in a friendly way if they have suggestions to improve what you added. You can make this episode into something positive. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's both puzzling and enraging how people that can seem intelligent and reasonable actually don't understand a damn word of any of it.... Go re-read what I wrote in my previous post, twice if necessary and you'll realize to erase the first part and let it go and the second part was actually said about a dozen times in each of the previous seven threads..... It's enraging and frustrating but all I was saying about that was that I could, anyone could, if they were so inclined go and look through the past 500 posts of anybody like Kevinmce, the only requirement would be time.... With 48-60 consecutive hours of focus and energy you'd be surprised with what you can come up with and ANYONE can have their research and work judged, erased or changed simply by putting in the time to find out everything that is wrong with it.... I would never bother with that sort of behavior because I'd rather just leave and not give a second passing thought.... I have never and will likely never go through the contributions of someone else to nitpick over what they're doing wrong.... I only do the research I do in the first place because I care about the subject matter.... I could be playing video games or doing drugs instead of researching information to contribute to Wikipedia. It's very puzzling how you thought that by suggesting I do the same exact thing to Kevinmce that Kevinmce did to me, WHICH IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATORS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY IN THE GOOD FAITH OF FACT CHECKING - that this would make things worse..... Who is he to be above being checked and verified by an editor who might be verifying facts and the relevance of an editors edits.... Obviously I made perfectly clear (or so I thought) that this sort of mindset is primitive and destructive and I most decisively have better things to do but you shouldn't say something like... oh it's ok if Kevinmce goes and checks through all of your contributions but it's not ok if someone else does the exact same thing to him.... Don't you realize how reprehensible and dangerous such a thing sounds. Relax EdgeNavidad, you have the perfect name for a dangerous sounding Christmas and you don't need to worry about such trivial things that are barely even real. I have a lot of things to be doing right now that don't involve wikipedia and maybe after my 30-60 day self-imposed I'm getting the hell out of here to go do something constructive ban is up you will be absolutely right and constructive dialogue can and will be used instead of just self-determining what does and does not belong and if I make an edit that I think belongs but Bald Boris, EdgeNavidad and Zwerg Nase say it is opinion based or not relevant than obviously the combination of BaldBoris EdgeNavidad and ZwergNase should overrule anything Raleigh has to say and the 2 or 3 editors should have the final say over the one person who thinks something should be included Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. Don't take things so personally. Look, it either was OK what Kevin did, or it was not. If it was OK: no need for revenge. If it was not OK: don't follow his bad example. Either way, your best action is to take the high road, make your contributions even better than they are, and ask Kevin or others to help you. You will come out of this situation with more than how you came in, so you can be the winner. I would not be spending time to reply to you if I did not think you have the potential to be a great contributor, don't see me as the enemy. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ja, si and da.... Ich habe Sie sicherlich als Feind gesehen, aber ich merke, wie viel von dem, was zwischen den meisten Menschen gesagt wird, entweder in der Übersetzung von Sprache, Kultur, Ideen und SMS verloren geht, die nicht sprechen ... aber ja, mein größtes Argument und zeigen Sie, was das ist Ich dachte, was er tat, war gegen die Regeln und sollte es sicherlich sein, aber wenn es nicht so ist.... The rules are the rules..... dann ist das in Ordnung, niemand hat die Kontrolle darüber

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me finish this by saying something I should have said earlier: I completely understand that you were annoyed after seeing your 200 most recent contributions being reverted. You worked hard on that, with good intentions, and all that work just disappeared. That is a bad feeling, everybody here should understand that. Wikipedia can say that we don't have ownership of our contributions, but it it surely feels like we do. You feel attacked; I would also have felt attacked. Your instinct tells you to fight back; understandable. I would also consider that. Alternatively, I would tell myself that Wikipedia is not worthy of my time, and think about deleting my account. I understand why you don't like what happened, and I understand if you are thinking about fighting back or giving up; I know I would think about that. I just hope that you choose neither, and continue to add cycling content.

(Ich kann Deutsch lesen, aber nicht so gut schreiben. Ich mache viele Fehler, was warscheinlich von diesen Text klar wird. Es ist interessant das du entscheided hatte auf Deutsch zu schreiben.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well i felt attacked because it was one person just eliminating them one after another.... It's petty and stupid, anyone who would do that is petty and stupid and anyone who approve of it is petty and stupid as there are far far more constructive ways of doing whatever it was he thought he was doing, as in several ways.... Not to mention people who delete edits outright and never try to reword or rephrase them are also very petty and stupid because it's just removing something which any monkey can do.... Rewording, rephrasing or adding something relevant takes intelligence and effort.... For example Kevinmce erased the four true stories I posted of riders who almost died during the tour, which was relevant because it was a Tour de France history article, and these were the exact same type of incidents as the deadly incidents.... Deleted Because the explanations were too long.... But instead of editing them down or explaining and expanding some relevant information about the riders who died during the tour he just erased it outright because that was the easiest thing to do which caused the least amount of effort.... It's like word count matters to him lololol... Fighting back is only worthwhile when it matters.... By which I mean if it is worth exerting energy on and if something of value will come from it.... I just don't have the time or the energy to deal with something this petty and stupid when there are many many other worthwhile constructive and creative things to be doing.... Adding cycling content is worthwhile but half of it can't be cited or proven and is arrived at by being intelligent enough to study the statistics and numbers independently and then translate what those statistics and numbers mean in a manner that makes sense.... and you can't cite independent research like that... But yes if I see something relevant I'll certainly make an edit, but I'm definitely not going to 'work' on this anymore and spend 2 or 6 days writing a large contribution to an article... Ja Deutsche es gut... Ruski, Espanol,and French as well.... I even got a Book of Mormon written in Dutch when I visited Utah 2 years ago just to see what it looks like to read and learn Dutch!

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically I can read both German and Russian... But can't speak them either.... It's good to at least attempt to learn other languages though.... I mean why not??? Most people in Europe seem to speak two or three anyways Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do with this edit. Thank you. Darren-M talk 18:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true Darren-M.... I verified that his faith was bad and I verified that he intentionally attacked me out of pettiness and to get revenge for something he was mad at.... I verified these things before saying anything Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved. Darren-M has pointed out a WP:PA that you have made - you should WP:AGF as he has suggested. Lightburst (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst does uninvolved know that this person deliberately targeted my contributions page? Or is that not even relevant and I should go wp:agf anyways? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darren B I did assume good faith with the edits that initially escalated this situation and did leave his edit...I also considered it good faith on another page from the 1961 Tour de France and went to the talk page to discuss the edit but was never notified of a reply that there was any further discussion on that talk page...

I considered malice when I was looking at "my contributions" one by one and nearly every single recent one had been targeted and deleted.

Ok you're saying that even if I think it was malicious or intentionally against good faith.... I should still make the assumption of 'Good Faith'

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh80Z90Faema69, 'Assume good faith' means exactly that. If somebody does something that you disagree with, you should consider that they did it out of a genuine desire to do good. It is also worth approaching conversations with a mindset that you might be wrong.

I am unconvinced that the behaviour by the editor concerned which you have described is anything other than good faith. If you revert somebody, I don't think it is unreasonable to check whether they have demonstrated the same behaviour or mistakes in other articles. Instead, that seems to be a good way of quickly finding things that need fixing.

I think it's worth noting that two uninvolved editors - myself and Lightburst have commented here with advice and I think ultimately it would be helpful if you took it, or otherwise it seems likely that this dispute will continue to escalate and I can't see how that helps anybody. Best, Darren-M talk 22:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Darren-M.... You considered it good faith I considered it and continue to consider it inappropriate malice, which is fine as I don't make decisions or enforce rules administrators do. Also, you seem to have only addressed the surface of this issue and did not look into each and every incident and page because there is damage that can be done to many many people by allowing someone to behave in this manner. If you did read and consider each incident then so be it. In closing, I will always assume good faith as I have always assumed good faith when it comes to editing and others who edit. This is actually the first time in 2 years I have come across someone who I would say acted so recklessly and I will not allow this incident to warp or injure my opinion of wikipedia or the people who contribute to it Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: I find that it is best to say less at ANI. You had some problematic PAs and some of your edits were not backed by refs. If you keep tying to defend yourself in long responses without acknowledging mistakes it will show editors that you do not get it. We need your editing on here (great first article) and it stinks to get blocked or banned, so drop the stick. I think the best outcome of your ani report is that it gets closed with no action. JMHO Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that wasn't my intention, I never had a stick out at anyone other than the person I perceive acted inappropriately.... It took a few hundred edits until I even finally figured out the proper way to do a legitimate and by the guidelines citation with archive dates, url's, cite web cite news etc... This is not easy to learn for most non-tech type people.... And the without references part is true and I hate it, but sometimes there are obvious and real and true facts that are on vintage television broadcasts that I cannot cite because every time I've tried to cite youtube it gets rejected and the replay footage I watched on youtube is my only source. The same goes for numbers.... I'll quote facts from the numbers within the article and interpret what the numbers say and I cannot cite it because I got the information from the numbers within the article itself... The case of Davis Phinney, Taylor Phinney, Alfons De Wolf and many many many others so I will have to stop that type of editing altogether permanently even though it belongs in sports type articles.

That isn't the issue. At all. The reckless and irresponsible way Kevinmce acted and is behaving is making wikipedia a worse place, and there should be no room for this vindictive and petty behavior. You're absolutely right.... I'm dropping my stick and am not going to go after his contribution page and nitpick over every single edit he has made because he is exactly and 100% the type of person who would attack someone's page, and then immediately report someone if they did the same to him. Basically thee most mentally weak and clueless type of person presently walking the face of this planet but I am going quit and walk away from wikipedia because if this sort of reckless and irresponsible behavior is tolerated then why would I want to be here? I will not feel it is worth investing as much time into this, which is fine, wikipedia might need editors like me but I'm not wasting my time if trivial and petty revenge based attacks are justified by administrators. Thanks for the help on the only article I've ever created, at least it is a legitimate one and I told this author about it on his youtube page and he said that it was a very nice thing to do for him. He's an old school bestselling novelist so I don't think he or his colleagues even know or understand how wikipedia pages get created and contributed to. Of course I don't want to see this account booted or banned or suspended but I'm not going to go against what I know is morally right either. I know the difference between right and wrong and I absolutely know a vindictive petty attack when I see one and what kevinmce did was a vindictive and petty attack... Rrrargg I'll show you I'll undo all your edits..... Is exactly what he did. And please don't think of this as a long rant of a post.... I'm a writer no different than any other writer so it's very very easy to write out 20 or 30 paragraphs on my phone... it's really not a big deal at all.... It would be like you throwing a football 30 yards if you were a football player.... Yeah most people can't do it but for you it's really really easy and you do it like 50 times a day and if I ever invested 10, 20 or 30 hours a week to wikipedia instead of the 45minutes I do spend I think I could make a lot of good contributions as many other people could. As far as my ANI report there never should have been one in the first place, I was plucking along learning as I went occasionally trying to contribute and learn at the same time until I got interrupted for no "legitmate" reason. There was a petty reason I got interrupted and when that happens it's time to find better, more constructive and supportive places to exert effort. I appreciate the time spent on this matter Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably WP:FOLLOWING by the editor kev, and your frustration in your uncivil remarks will always raise eyebrows and draw the scorn of the community. I do not think kev will not get sanctions from the community. He was following for reasons of improving the project. Since you are new you should know that the community will say WP:CIR, so they will likely give you a pass, but best to lurk and read up. You can also go to other articles to read the diffs of edits and see how others work here. Stay with it! Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it and continue to consider it inappropriate malice, which is fine [...] I'm afraid I have to disagree here. WP:AGF is a policy we should all follow, and you don't even seem to be trying. Rrrargg I'll show you I'll undo all your edits..... Is exactly what he did. Again, as I said at ANI, there is no sign of that. You cannot leap to conclusions about other people's motivations – that is the opposite of assuming good faith, and you must not keep making these accusations, which amount to personal attacks. Again, it is not fine to assume that another editor's actions are caused by "inappropriate malice", especially not when multiple experienced editors explain that those actions appear to be reasonable and not at all malicious. As Lightburst points out just above (and as others pointed out in your ANI thread), it is neither uncommon nor malicious to check the other edits of an editor who seems to be unclear on how to source contributions or write neutrally, and such following is only disruptive if it involves reverting constructive edits. The other editor did not revert any constructive edits and they explained every revert they did. Seven different editors have responded in your thread at ANI, and none of us was able to spot any sign of "malice". But note that nobody is assuming any bad faith on your part even though you made edits that did not follow the guidelines and policies on sourcing and neutrality – everybody assumes that you acted out of good faith, until you started to assume bad faith and posted attacks and all-caps comments in your edit summaries. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.... In conclusion, if I have a disagreement with one of my edits being changed or deleted.... I should go and find a legitimate reason backed up with a reference to put it back up and if I can't find one then the edit shall remain omitted or a discussion on the topic should be brought to the talk page.... As far as going onto an editors page and pouring over each and every one of their edits to verify their edits are legitimate I can do that if I want as well.... Then if I wish to delete an edit I should provide a valid reason and the keeping of assuming Good Faith on behalf of ALL editors is one of the finest guidelines any website can have... The line between good faith and bad faith is most certainly a line that is difficult to prove and while it did most definitely appear to me that kevinmce acted for vindictive and personal reasons and in no way shape or form did he have any reason to believe that false or misleading information was being edited into articles by me, it doesn't really matter because motivation is a personal thing that isn't made public.... With that being said I do not know the policy of WP:AGF but I will make myself aware of it. Thanks for the info regarding this matter and the assistance with the infobox on my first created page! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this article. The author was a NYT bestseller so we can move it to main space. Great job on your first article! Lightburst (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks lightburst! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your personal attacks calling another editor a vandal. Per RPA anyone can remove personal attacks. Lightburst (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.... personal attacks based on revenge, spite, anger or jealousy are very dangerous, always pointless and never constructive Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the page I created.... Well I made one edit and you made about 25 edits so it's really a page you created.... I'm going to go study what you did to see how you made the page that I created Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raleigh80Z90Faema69. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks for the email.... I understand what you're saying entirely.... If I were being paid to edit Wikipedia for someone or this was in any way shape or form personal to me I would certainly take more direct and appropriate action.... But when you're a professional writer and there's lots of business to tend to the novice editor you're referring to (with 40x the edits lol) can just keep splattering his opinion as though it is the principle guiding encyclopedic golden rule of wikipedia and be dealt with at a later time. I'm sure there are others who will pop in and occasionally explain reality.... If not, then eventually there will be but either way thanks for the msg!

The weirdest thing I have found about many wikipedia editors is that they actually think they are editing a legit, old school style Encyclopedia Brittanica.... They are not... Yet they think that they are for some reason.... Wikipedia might claim to be an encyclopedia but it is not...if it was it wouldn't have 1/10,000 the users it presently does. It's a pop culture reference guide, an up to the minute news source, a history book, a stats reference maybe a place to play trivia with your friends but it is not an encyclopedia..... It is something much more than an "encyclopedia" Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is all of these things, including encyclopedia.... Which either way makes it more than an encyclopedia and therefore not an actual encyclopedia.... Wikipedia is evolution Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joop Zoetemelk, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kim Andersen and Claudio Corti.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Bennett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Martínez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Smith (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hall of Fame Game.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miguel Ángel López.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1979–80 Hartford Whalers season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page André Lacroix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read above a diatribe about your personal conviction that Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia. I would refer you to the very first of the five pillars of Wikipedia "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Until that is retracted, I will treat edits that, directly contrary to that fundamental principle and despite its specific injunctions, treat WP as "a vanity press, ... an indiscriminate collection of information, or ... a newspaper", as vandalism. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not treat anything with fundamental principles.... I suggest you change your very intolerant, judgemental, opinionated demeanor.... I see the way you edit other people and you NEVER contribute, you only erase and then judge people as to why you've erased them.... You call people stupid you name call, you make fun of people's edits and you have a serious attitude problem..... You're not just wrong, you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.... You take things personally and then you attack people as though you being right somehow vindicates you of something.... This is not a place for THE OPINIONS OF KEVIN MCE.... That is not what wikipedia is..... Try contributing sometime Kevin.... Not erasing, removing and accusing people of not having the same intellect as you Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear: do you think that you are above being expected to adhere to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia or not? Kevin McE (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think>>>> that not only do I take the fact, substance and principles of wikipedia very seriously, but I know with absolute certainty that I take the spirit, idea and importance of wikipedia far more seriously than you do.....

I think that you make it your business to judge people, make fun of people and try to hurt people and I think you go out of your way to do it.... Which is more sad than it is disturbing.... I also think that you think it is far more important to delete edits you do not agree with, rather than edit, modify or contribute historic information to make Wikipedia better.... Instead of just deleting what in your opinion does not belong, try rewriting and adding content to make it better.... Then thank the person for their GOOD FAITH attempt at editing.... Am I clear? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not clear. Are you committed to developing Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, rather than as a repository of journalistic commentary and opinionated reportage, or not? Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with you on the Dan Martin Edit.... Yes everyone knows about Covid it doesn't need to be included on every riders page, and yes the way you edited those paragraphs is much more precise..... But on Luz Ardiden I disagree because every other major mountain in Tour history has notable stages if they have a "cycling" subsection.... If you think you can make them more precise then fine but just flat out erasing them isn't really contributing Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilco Kelderman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page João Almeida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave this here so that other editors get a feel for your form of discourse. This is something that Raleigh80Z90Faema69 left on my talk page after I removed, for the umpteenth time, examples of his refusal to even try to desist from POV, unencyclopaedic and highly irrelevant gloss in articles involving professional road race cycling.

It's embarrassing how often you violate pillars 4 and 5 of wikipedia..... This E-N-C-Y-L-O-P-E-D-I-A is not your personal property, you are not entitled to make up whatever rules KevinMCE deems to be rules.... As you do not know, but should know.... There are no formal rules

Also, another pillar you continuously violate is the condescending disrespectful manner in which you treat people.... Instead of trying to help people and make this E-N-C-Y-L-O-P-E-D-I-A better you just remove and erase

Clearly there are many, many, many people here much, much smarter than you are.... Including myself..... You're terrible attitude and destructive manner is not appreciated...... It's intolerable, childish, rude, impolite and flat out against the rules.....

With this being said.... I just felt it was worth letting you know that you make this E-N-C-Y-L-O-P-E-D-I-A a much much worse place by constantly erasing and never taking the time or effort to edit or rewrite anyone's contributions and instead just erase them.

Instead of just erasing every little mistake you find, or telling other people how stupid they are (which is ironic considering your obvious lack of intelligence) maybe you should try being HELPFUL, or fixing edits if you see a mistake instead of just erasing all of it.

In closing, I'm clearly stronger than you mentally..... By a considerable margin and am obviously much, much smarter than you..... But maybe if you change your attitude and stop being petty, vindictive and downright rude you will become a better person and someone who actually contributes to this E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A in a meaningful way..... Instead of just violating pillars 4 and 5 over and over and over again

People do not come to this E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A to be made fun of by someone who thinks they're so much better than everyone else..... Change your attitude, try helping people, try being polite and friendly and courteous and this E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A will become a better, more productive community for everyone involved

Now remove this, don't reply to it because there is nothing someone like you can say or do to ever effect someone as strong as me..... Learn from it..... It's not ok to treat people like scumbags and you are nowhere even remotely close to the smartest person on this E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A know that.... It is indisputable fact

Kevin McE (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes....I did leave this on the talk page of KevinMCE..... For the umpteenth time of trying to explain why not to be condescending.....

How what is "relevant" to you might NOT be relevant to someone else....

How being polite, friendly, personable and helpful is way, way more effective than making fun of people, than always removing entire edits when one simple change could have been made

of violating pillars 4 and 5 over and over again..... And constantly ignoring the suggestion of try to make the contributions of editors BETTER by editing or rewriting.... Not just erasing them and telling them how dumb they are

Yes I definitely wrote this to KevinMCE.... It won't do any good because this type of egotistical, know-it-all behavior just cannot be fixed

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, petty, vindictive, childish attacks are not a sign of intelligence Kevin.... They're just not Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware of, and with to pay heed to, this quote: personal attacks based on revenge, spite, anger or jealousy are very dangerous, always pointless and never constructive. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... It would be nice if you would learn.... Act polite, be friendly, be constructive, be helpful..... Stop violating Pillars 4 and 5 over and over and over again.... There are no firm rules..... There is absolutely no reason to be rude, mean, insulting and petty to people.....

You didn't understand this back then and you clearly don't understand it now..... You're still mean, self-centered, egotistical, you never try to help anyone or make this E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A better..... You just erase what you don't like.... And then insult the person.... You don't edit to help people have better articles.... You edit to humiliate people and prove how right you are..... Like someone who really doesn't have much of a chance in any real world environments

you're welcome for the quote.... but it does you no good until you actually change your terrible attitude and incredibly condescending demeanor Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Amakuru. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Kevin McE that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is.... And this person continuously attacks, makes fun of, talks down to other people and he never, ever treats people in a polite or civil manner and it is very annoying to have someone constantly erase the hard work of editors instead of trying to help, contribute or make any effort whatsoever to fix the edit, or offer constructive criticism.... Also his "opinion" is ironclad fact and the only things that are "relevant" are what he says is relevant and to be perfectly honest with you I'm sick of his attitude so I said something about it to him Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jhonatan Narváez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Clarke.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rafał Majka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miguel Ángel López.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Benjamin112. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Primož Roglič, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This holds true for several articles, including Odd Christian Eiking and Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux, among others. Benjamin112 ☎ 16:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not clarify that Odd Christian Eiking and Intermarche were cited from the career results sections within the articles.... On Roglič there is certainly a citation available by now so one will be provided... Thanks for being diligent, things stay accurate this way! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added an entry to Glossary of cycling, but without a citation. Ideally, list items should be cited inline, so I did a quick search through the existing references and added one. You don't need to do anything, it's just something to be aware of.
— W.andrea (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated.... It's a perfect example. It's an obvious entry that everyone knows.... Except the 98% of the readers who know nothing about cycling... Thanks Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the domain fr24news .com has been blacklisted in Wikipedia. I was removing them today and found that in several of the Tour de France and cyclist articles, you had used that source. It is one of those websites that copies articles from elsewhere (in violation of copyright) and changes a few words here and there so that the automated checkers do not discover it is a copy. I think FR24news is pretending to be France 24, but it is not. For most of my removals, I tagged them with 'citation needed' because I was either unable to locate the original (valid) article, or when I did locate one I couldn't decipher it (I'm not a cyclist/cycle fan). If you are interested in revisiting those articles and finding the original/correct citation to replace FR24news, you can look through my contributions list for today for articles you might have previously edited. However, I'm not the only editor removing FR24news links today. Platonk (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate the info.... Can you let me know any of my edits that you may have changed so that i can find another source for the articles I've edited, I haven't used them often but definitely a half dozen times or so..... Thanks again, I'll keep it in mind and remember not to use them in the future.... I actually thought they were France 24 Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just check my contributions list (edit history). I just finished the project and each one of my edits are tagged with "Remove blacklisted fr24news .com". They are bunched all together. Looks like there are 27 of them. Easy to find. You may recognize a cyclist's name, I wouldn't. Platonk (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The day started out with 65 articles containing FR24news, so someone else did the other 38. Platonk (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, luckily that's not too too many... Thanks again for letting me know! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is to be done about this..... I on three occasions attempted added relevant content that is cited and verifiable and has undeniable historical relevance..... The editors that have undone my edit did so for reasons including "Shitty" sources, which included the USA Today and The Daily Mail, and because my edit didn't have a point, how can such childish, clearly biased and opinionated editors who are just trying to alter history by having something humiliating kept out of an article?

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make a case at talk and get consensus, a case based upon policy, and not political rants (and yes the DM is a shity source (see wp:rsp).Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then do so, rather than launching into rants about how biased we are (especialy if they are walls of text, we will just stop reading). We are not going to be won over by your tone or launguage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, I'm trying to include a relevant piece of history regarding Kamala Harris, which I believe I cited properly using sources accepted by Wikipedia. This is not some trivial piece of history, but a relevant one, and the reasons it keeps getting removed seem petty and arbitrary, for example questioning the English. The obvious reality is people who like Harris are embarrassed she said what she said and are trying to keep it out of the article. I'm not really sure what to do about this being as I never, or very very rarely edit political articles Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good starting point would be discussing at the talk page. Open a topic, make a proposal of the text you want to add to the article, and see what other users say.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a way that does not attack or mock other users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I have already been attacked and mocked, being accused of providing "shitty references" even though I used USA Today, Daily Mail and The Hill, which were all accepted as valid sources by Wikipedia. I did not realize that the New York Post would be rejected by Wikipedia, but when I got the notice that one of my sources was unacceptable I searched through them one by one until I found the one that wikipedia rejected, which was the NY Post, and removed that source from my edit. I was also arbitrarily accused of not having a point and of having bad grammar, even though the grammar was perfectly fine and all of the information I included was factual, verifiable and relevant. I did start a talk thread and I will rewrite this or seek out other sources, as there are countless sources on this from the United States, to Australia and Europe, but I would think that if I used USA Today, maybe include the source I found from Business Insider, the Daily Mail from the UK and perhaps one other non mass media source that this should be acceptable right? This seems to be a case of, they don't like the history, so they want to exclude the history they don't like, which seems to go against the very spirit of Wikipedia Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DM is a deprecated source (see wp:rsp), and as you are not the USA Today, Daily Mail and The Hill you were not being attacked, they were.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that still seems a bit opinionated, to accuse the USA Today, The Hill and Daily Mail of being "shitty sources" and therefore not acceptable.... by this logic what sources aren't shitty? Fox news, Newsmax and MSNBC? Fox is the propaganda wing of the Republican party and exist solely to advance the cause of Republicans just as MSNBC and CNN are the propaganda arms of the Democratic party and only exist to subvert and hide bad news about democrats while exaggerating any dirt they can find of republicans..... It really is too bad that 'journalism' is kind of a dead field, but this is why wikipedia is important..... But as I said I'll remove that Daily Mail source if it isn't acceptable to wikipedia and search for other sources, thanks Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DM is, and it is possible that they were only objecting to the DM. You need to stop making assumptions about users, as you are doing your case nothing but harm, as you are antagonising people.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any assumptions about any users and I didn't say ANYTHING at any point about any editors... All I said was that only sources from Democratic approved media outlets seem to be acceptable....

You need to relax, I'm not antagonizing anyone, I'm replying to what the actual facts seem to be, and furthermore I said that I would wait until September when VP Harris is asked to stay away from New York City and then post her historically accurate quote again, to explain why she was asked to stay away from New York on 9/11..... And the ONLY REASON this edit was removed is because editors who are strongly Democrat, and who are trying to protect Democrats refuse to allow anything that would make the VP look bad, even if it is factual and accurate and could be cited from 100 outlets..... I made an edit that was cited, undisputable and factual and it got removed on multiple occasions.

That's fine, I said I would wait until September or December to add this historically accurate quote again..... I realize that people are very very delicate and get offended very very easily especially when people they are trying to make look good, do something ignorant and stupid like compare events where thousands of people were killed to events that more than half the country could care less about.

This is why I don't ever, ever get into political edits on wikipedia, the people involved with it are far too weak minded to listen to any arguments aside from their own and I don't want to be bothered with those types of fragile people, it's not worth the nonsense. I'm done with this for now, enjoy the day Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Democrats have no control over what we do (especially as many of us are not even American). Secondly, we do in fact allow plenty of conservative sources, the Time, The Telegraph. But what we do not allow are sources that outright makeup stuff. Thirdly, and I want you to really take this in, I did not object to your edit on the grounds I thought it should not be there, but your reasoning for wanting it there and its tone. You make it clear here, your only reason for wanting this is political, a wp:nothere reason. That and the fact you edit warred, if you had made a reasonable case I would have almost certainly supported inclusion (worded neutrally), but I can't support inclusion of material that seems to be aimed at damaging someone's reputation. That and the fact you clearly did not bother to read any of our policies, you wanted to make a political point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If not when.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not read any of the policies yet, I said I will read them before making any edits regarding political topics.

The edit in question there is absolutely justification for, she said what she said, this is indisputable fact, there was nothing to edit war about?

What was I warring about? I wrote a factual statement, with verifiable sources, even if one of them was supposedly unacceptable the other two weren't, those people involved in edit warring could have simply removed the one questionable source..... THE WARRING WAS DONE BY THE PEOPLE WHO REMOVED THE EDIT

ONE OUT OF THE THREE SOURCES WAS BAD SO THEY REMOVED IT, I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF HAVING POOR GRAMMAR, WHICH WAS FALSE AND RATHER STUPID, BUT IT WAS REMOVED AGAIN..... Instead of doing a simple rewrite it was flat out removed.

The absolute fact of the matter is, this person said something very dangerous and very stupid that she should be held accountable for, but because she is a member of the liberal Democratic party she is protected.....

The only reason this edit was removed was political and that is THE ABSOLUTE ONLY REASON. F-A-C-T

The only reason I made the edit was I couldn't believe a sitting Vice President could say something so ignorant and so disconnected from reality and nobody even bothered to mention it. Obviously mainstream news sources couldn't report on this, they were too humiliated to acknowledge she said something this ignorant, but others did report it.

I didn't edit war with anyone, the irresponsible and reckless people who removed did, so you, did, you are guilty of edit warring, not me.

Bad grammar bad sources..... A bunch of nonsense, it was removed for political reasons..... It's a democratic politician and they must be protected.....

And i wasn't making a political point, I was making a point.... Check my edit history I DO NOT MAKE POLITICAL POINTS..... EVER

This person said something very serious, very stupid and very dangerous, but it doesn't have to be included in wikipedia because it might actually reveal some truthful information about her, can't have that now can we

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely removing edits is warring isn't it..... No effort made to rewrite it, or make it more concise....

Whatever, I'm not concerned by it, it's a little annoying because it was factual, but I've never spent time on political arguments in the past for this exact reason Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the discussion (now closed) at Harris' talkpage. Your best route would be to open an RFC on what you wish to add to the article. FWIW, Biden & Harris weren't exactly pushing for unity in their speeches. But rather their speeches possibly widened the gulf between Americans. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please red wp:indent, it makes following conversations easier.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THis is also now a warning, your last one. Read wp:npa and stop attacking other users and read wp:editwar and understand that accusing users who have made one edit of breaching it is a falsehood. I have told you already that your tone is not going to convince people of the validity of your edits, if you launch an RFC with the same tone it will not stick. You also need to read wp:blp. The next time I will tell you not to attack other users it will be at ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I suggest before you launch any wp:RFC read that very carefully.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a warning????

ATTENTION SLATERSTEVEN ---- THE LAST EDIT I MADE WAS ON JANUARY 9TH, TWO DAYS AGO NOW

• • • • • • AND THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION AND ALL OF THE CONVERSATION ON THE TALK PAGE OF KAMALA HARRIS HAS OCCURRED SINCE THAT TIME, WITH ZERO OTHER EDITS BEING MADE BY ME******

I HAVE MADE ZERO EDITS SINCE THAT TIME.... AND I HAVE NOT ATTACKED ANY USERS OR THREATENED ANY USERS AT ANY POINT AT ANY TIME, ON ANY EDIT, YOU ARE JUST MAKING THAT UP OR PERCEIVING SOMETHING TO BE AN ATTACK BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE AN ATTACK

YOU SEEM TO BE TAKING THIS WAY TOO PERSONALLY AND ARE GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY TO MAKE THREATS AND ARE EXAGGERATING THINGS FAR, FAR WORSE THAN ANY RATIONAL PERSON WOULD

AGAIN, ZERO EDITS HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE JANUARY 9TH YET YOU CONTINUE THREATEN AND PESTER ME AS THOUGH I'VE MADE 25 EDITS IN SOME NON-EXISTENT EDIT WAR

THIS WILL BE THE THIRD TIME I'M TELLING YOU I'M DONE WITH THIS, I DON'T NEED TO READ ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE TO SAY AND I CERTAINLY DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY WARNINGS YOU MAKE OR THREATS YOU MAKE BECAUSE THE ONLY POWER YOU HOLD IS ON WIKIPEDIA, WHICH MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EVEN IF IT MEANS YOU CAN ATTACK POLITICAL ENEMIES OR PEOPLE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE

I TOLD YOU **SEVERAL TIMES** THAT I WOULD WAIT UNTIL SEPTEMBER, WHEN THE 9/11 VICTIMS TELL KAMALA HARRIS TO STAY AWAY FROM THEIR MEMORIALS, AND IF AND WHEN THAT BECOMES NEWS, THE EDIT I TRIED TO MAKE THREE TIMES WILL BECOME MORE RELEVANT THAN IT ALREADY IS RIGHT NOW AND CAN THEREFORE BE ADDED BACK IN

so I suggest, that you just move on, I have done nothing but try to get a valid reason as to why my properly cited, factually indisputable edit was removed aside from the very baseless and childish reasons which are visible from the editors who removed it in the first place on the Kamala Harris page itself.

THE VERY MINIMAL AND IN REALITY MEANINGLESS POWER YOU HAVE ON WIKIPEDIA MEANS NOTHING TO ME STEVEN, IT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND THE REASON PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE NEVER GIVEN ACTUAL SERIOUS AUTHORITY IS BECAUSE YOU WOULD ABUSE IT BY LYING CHEATING AND DECEIVING TO GET YOUR WAY, WHICH IS AS OBVIOUS AS IT IS APPARENT JUDGING BY YOUR LATEST BASELESS THREAT OF WARNING ME FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON WHATSOEVER

FURTHERMORE, I ACCUSED NO ONE OF ANYTHING, ASIDE FROM YOU, AFTER YOU ACCUSED ME OF EDIT WARRING AFTER MAKING THREE ATTEMPTS TO REWRITE THE EDIT I WAS MAKING OR JUST PUTTING IT BACK UP BECAUSE THE BASELESS REASON IT WAS REMOVED WAS "SHITTY GRAMMAR" WHICH IS NOT PROFESSIONAL AT ALL AND CERTAINLY NO ONE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR LISTENED TO IN ANY WAY ----- YET HERE YOU ARE AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A SINGLE EDIT, ANYWHERE, SINCE THIS TALK SECTION BEGAN AND THE NOW CLOSED TALK SECTION ON THE KAMALA HARRIS PAGE BEGAN.

I DON'T NEED ANY OF YOUR WARNINGS, ADVICE OR DISCONNECTED PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT YOU'RE READING, HOWEVER IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THEN ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, DON'T JUST MAKE ASSUMPTIONS Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoodDay, much appreciated, but I'm not concerned about it anymore, if someone else adds it in so be it, but I've decided to wait until September if and when it becomes news again which it very well might, enjoy the day GoodDay! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Quinn Simmons, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, George Weinstein, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I added citations where you asked for them, plus added another section on the books, and I also relocated some of the citations to the Books section because it seemed a bit cluttered. Thanks Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gusfriend were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

References 5-8 are primary sources and don't help with notability. It really needs independent sources for both. Are there some reviews like this that you can find?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Weinstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:George Weinstein, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raleigh80Z90Faema69! 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! Gusfriend (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No new sources added since last submission. What you're trying to do is show that at least two of his books meet the guidelines at WP:NBOOK, which is why Gusfriend suggested finding more reviews, or show that critics/scholars/etc write articles about him as an author. (I just checked and didn't find anything for that second option - but I did not check very hard.)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Weinstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:George Weinstein, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be tagged for G13 deletion.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

If there aren't any more articles that discuss him or his books I'm afraid you're stuck - that would mean he doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Weinstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:George Weinstein, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be tagged for G13 deletion.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:George Weinstein. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hardscrabble Road is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardscrabble Road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mikel Landa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page João Almeida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2004 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fame.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Giro d'Italia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page João Almeida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quinn Simmons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mads Pedersen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romain Bardet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page João Almeida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Turini2 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this editor is continuously manipulating content and including content in articles that is not true.... For example, in the 2022 Tour de France he is claiming that riders supported climate change protests even though nowhere in the article does it mention riders supporting protests, in fact it says the opposite.... Also this editor is continuously trying to make the article align with his political beliefs instead of staying with the content of the article, which is about the race, so I have been making efforts to get rid of the political content and keep the article about the race Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add unsourced content into articles, esp. when they are WP:BLPs. And please don't restore unsourced content. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as i said, i was adding the source, but you responded so quickly that it generated an error and said someone else was editing the page.... Luckily as you have likely noticed, as soon as you finished undoing the edit the source was the added, but the source could not be added until you were finished because two people cannot edit at once Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Turini2 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It means absolutely nothing to me, absolutely nothing...... I realize you are obligated to report this to me, but I want you to know that it means nothing to me, because it is coming from you.....

I think the way you've written is harmful and detrimental to the Tour de France, I think you worked very very hard to include climate change content and voice your support for protests, and did everything in your power to make sure these protests were viewed in a positive light and I think you intentionally cited articles in false and misleading ways to deliberately side with your personal political beliefs and I think of you as some very deceitful and misleading person who will lie cheat and manipulate to get your way.... I also think you put politics ahead of the race, and I also think that you are not the type of person who has to be taken seriously or given any credibility, because of the way you intentionally put misleading titles and headlines into citations and then tried to pawn them off as fact.... And not just once or twice either..... It was really really important to get your climate change protest into the Tour de France when it was entirely irrelevant to the race and ONLY HARMED THE RACE.... A fact that you just couldn't come to terms with so you had to come after me and do everything in your power to get me removed because the last thing you're willing to address, is the actual truth of the matter. Protests harm the Tour de France, but go ahead Turnini get your politics into the titles and headlines of your citations.... Manipulate the facts in that way instead..... and again, this means nothing to me, I try contributing to the Tour de France because i love the sport, but I'm a novelist, so I have plenty of other writing to do, I only do this because of the sport and I did everything within my power to keep your nonsense politics out of it Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your disruptive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing 2022 Tour de France and Talk: 2022 Tour de France. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have a real problem with manipulation of facts and distorting the truth..... being as you're an admin for Wikipedia you're naturally not going to care about that sort of thing..... the only thing I can guarantee you regarding this matter is how much sleep I'll lose over it.... Zero.... it will be zero minutes, which is kind of ironic, that's the same amount of riders who supported the Tour de France being interrupted by clowns with political problems Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you turned to personal attacks and harassment of other editors, your block is now sitewide. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely against police, guidelines and rules, but ok Cullen, you go back to work.... See you around Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the block is not cite wide.... Confusing, like listening to someone who is heavily medicated barking out orders that are right, got it, I said something that definitely didn't break any rules, or guidelines or policies escalated based on emotion, huh Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest part, is that I didn't make any edits regarding the subject matter I was warned not to edit, instead making one true edit in a different paragraph.... I only mentioned the paragraph I was warned not to edit in the talk page, in a manner that makes sense and really isn't a big deal regarding the substance of the article being discussed being as a consensus on the matter was seemingly already agreed upon.... it has nothing to do with anything, but the addition of a true statement, and discussion triggered a meltdown report... On an article that was a live event last weekend Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lolz, don't worry bro, it's Wikipedia, you can always create another account on your girlfriends phone or just go buy a burner phone, everyone has a burner these days.

this sort of thing is going to happen with people who are in positions of authority, but aren't actually capable of making decisions that matter or bother looking at all the facts.

These aren't lawyers or writers bro, these are gamers and wannabes who live through the achievements of others.

As for you're buddy Cullen here, just tell him to have a nice life and be done with it, this is not someone you have to respect or take seriously in any way lol. Ha, enjoy the night, talk to you Wednesday at moms Squidclaw (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sock thing is crazy..... who knew Wikipedia had several hundred people, under several thousand accounts, hacking into their system, under different names, locations and IP addresses, with the sole intent of attacking different pages and people with the literal intent of disrupting the website and causing as much damage as possible. Damn geeks, this seems like a springboard to the NSA, or DIA, or maybe retire from the NSA or DIA and work for Wikipedia Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background --

Incident pt. 1

Incident pt. 2

Incident pt. 3

Talk page pt. 1

Talk page pt. 2

Aftermath

Rules 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7-

Citations --

Previous occurrences --

Conclusion Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal is in regards to an incident which happened on while editing the 2022 Tour de France Race Overview section back on July 25, 2022. I've explained the entire incident my from point of view from beginning to end in this appeal. I realize that the Admin reviewing this might not be familiar with the topic of the Tour de France, so I will write this appeal without assuming that they are familiar with how these pages are normally written.

This incident began on July 25, at the end of the Tour de France, which took place between July 1 and July 24. The day after the race ended the editor Turini began writing the "Race Overview" section for the 2022 Tour de France. Along with several other editors we assisted this editor in cleaning up mistakes, addressing ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[clarification needed]} tags which were put up by other editors. He added a thank you message in the talk section and I went and replied to this thanking him for the contribution and telling him he did a good job with it

The next day when the section was finished I read through this article and noticed that "The Second Week" subsection seemed to contain too much information on the protesters who briefly interrupted the race. As in 30% of the second week was about these protesters, which made absolutely no sense when considering the second week is 7 days long, or approximately 30 hours long in racing time and these protesters only interfered with about ten minutes of one day. By this math they affected far less than 1% of the the race and it seemed like it would be far more relevant to add in more content about the race rather than mention protesters who, historically speaking, are never mentioned or are given at most just a passing mention of no more than a sentence in Tour de France race overviews while most of times never being mentioned at all as they happen in one form or another nearly every year.

This wasn't a big deal and whatever, but it seemed more logical to me that the race overview should be about the race and not some minor interruption caused by protesters who don't actually matter and why should a group of people who interfered with 10 minutes out of 30 hours consume some 30% of the second week subsection of the article. Plus not only that, but the Tour de France is pretty specific when it comes to protesters in that they should not get any screen time and they should not be discussed when talking about the race as doing so will only contribute to more protesters showing up at future races.

Again it wasn't a big deal and I figured I would just erase most of it and limit it to one sentence as realistically speaking no more than that would be relevant to the race overview, but that is when this incident truly began. I noticed almost immediately that the Editor Turini made the edit that seemed to justify the incident as a "two sided argument" with a split opinion as to whether or not the fans and riders supported the climate change protesters and this editor seemed to provide sources for both sides of the argument, but this was misleading as there was no split opinion over a two sided argument, there was no argument at all

Right away this seemed a bit irrelevant and pointless and the reason the protesters are there is wholly irrelevant to the race, it doesn't matter, at all, the race organizers removed the protesters and that's it, that's the only relevant information. Then I began reading some of the "sources" and noticed that some seemed to be manipulative in nature. In one such source, one rider's words, Fred Wright, were taken out of context so I went out of my way to make an edit CLARIFYING that his words were manipulated and taken out of context and after reading the source revealed that he was actually calling the protests bad. It was also stated in the citations that members of the press called the protests a good thing, when in actual reality their words were also manipulated as nobody called the protests a good thing, they said their message was valid, but later in the source articles called the act of protesting bad, YET THAT WAS OMITTED FROM THE SOURCES and omitted from the substance of the article.

As such it "seemed" as though the editor who made these edits was intentionally going out of his way, not only to give the protesters "screen time" by talking about them, but also making an extended effort to make it known that what these protesters did was "a good thing", which was incredibly misleading because none of the riders within in the race, and there was 176 to start, were calling what these protesters did "a good thing", yet the edits were making it seem like there was some sort of split decision.

This started this whole argument regarding this section because this Turini editor came back and reverted my edits, EDITS I MADE BY TAKING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE VERY SOURCES TURINI PROVIDED including information that about the cyclist who had his words manipulated and taken out of context.

This editor went out of their way to eliminate the factual information about the overwhelmingly negative responses the riders had about the protests and rewrote the article to once again falsely reflect that there was a split opinion over the matter and that riders were calling the protesters "good" even though they weren't and the one and only source they had regarding this was from a rider who supposedly did actually wasn't but in fact had his quote manipulated and taken out of context.

To be clear this Turini editor did mention the counterpoint to the other side of the argument that other riders were calling the protesters imbeciles and idiots, but this seemed to be because he was trying to FORCE the point across that it was an equally split argument with some calling them good and some calling them bad WHICH WAS A DELIBERATE MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH as IT WAS NOT an evenly split opinion.

As such, on 26 July 15:42 Wikipedia time I removed -2,199 characters of data and just erased all information regarding the protests and only left ONE SENTENCE and ONE CITATION remaining in the substance of the article, which made sense to me when considering that "The Second Week" subsection was supposed to cover seven days, and considering the entire section was only three paragraphs long it made sense to me, that this borderline irrelevant incident on stage 10 should only have one sentence.

Not only that, but there is precedent for this sort of thing from previous race overviews. MOST TIMES PROTESTERS ARE NOT MENTIONED AT ALL. During the 2018 Tour de France protests were mentioned, but this was only because IT DID CAUSE THE RACE TO BE STOPPED for a notable amount of time being as the riders were accidentally maced by the police, but even then there was only a brief mention, with ONE CITATION, and once again it was only mentioned because the riders were maced so it affected the race.

After I removed all mentions of these protests being good or bad and simply left it with a one sentence reply is when this Turini filed a complaint about WARRING against me with an Admin, which was a bit enraging because it seemed absolutely lazy and ridiculous to go filing a very serious WARRING complaint over a section that has NO RELEVANCE ON THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE. It honestly seemed like this editor just really really wanted to get the point across that they felt, in their personal opinion, that the protests were a good thing.

After this complaint was filed I decided to stay out of it thinking it wasn't worth my time and the race had just ended and besides it wasn't worth fighting about because over the next month or two new articles and citations would be coming out and anything that was intentionally manipulated out of context could be addressed at a later time.

I received a WARNING, from a Wikipedia Admin not to address the paragraph that had to do with climate change protests. I read the warning, I understood the warning and I abided by the warning.

In the meantime the problem seemed to resolve itself when yet another Editor, an editor I had never heard of named "BrayLockBoy" came along and made an edit at 21:10, 26 July of +590 characters and seemingly resolved the entire problem. He added in a brief, seemingly accurate description of events with a proper citation and that SEEMED TO RESOLVE IT.

This editor has over 10,000 edits, but this was the first edit this person made regarding this particular topic and it seemed to resolve it. I thought the issue was over and done with at this point. It's not so much that this new edit was more aligned with my personal view on the subject, rather it was that this edit from BrayLockBoy basically told the situation exactly as it happened and I'm paraphrasing here but they basically edited "there were a bunch of protesters interrupting the race, the Tour officials dealt with them and had them removed and the race continued" which in essence was exactly what happened so I offered no argument to the new edit.

As such the next day on the Talk page while this incident was being discussed I made the mention that it was surprising NONE OF US THOUGHT OF IT AT THE TIME, but this issue also could have been resolved as simply as providing a link to the more detailed description page. Neither I nor any other editor mentioned it but this could have resolved the issue by adding in one sentence about the incident, but providing a link to a different page where more details could be added if this editor really wanted to expand upon this irrelevant incident any further.

As Admins who police ALL OF WIKIPEDIA you may not be familiar with how the Tour de France is written each year. The 'Race Overview' section where this argument took place is supposed to be a clean, quick yet detailed description of race events that can be short or long depending on the race and how much detail the editor writing it wants to cite and include. At the very top of EVERY RACE OVERVIEW section there are always links to the expanded race detail area of stages 1-11 and then stages 12-21.

But again, the editor BrayLockBoy seemed to resolve the issue so it became moot, seemingly.

But then a few days later the Editor Turini apparently decided that he didn't like the edit of BrayLockBoy and decided to not only go back in and re-enter the misleading sources and irrelevant information, but also to connect the climate change protester paragraph from stage 10 together with the heat wave paragraph which was spread out over the entire week. This seemed important to this editor to connect the heat wave to the climate change protesters which really has nothing to do with the Tour de France but instead was done to validate the protesters.

This Turini editor also erased a contribution I included at the end of the heat wave paragraph where I cited a previous Tour with heat wave, of which there are several dozen being as the race is run in July, but specifically the 1968 Tour De France, which I included because I think it's a good idea to include links to the history of the sport for new fans who might want to click on it to learn more. This was erased for no valid reason and the only realistic assumption I can make as to why it was erased was to have the added shock value of validating the climate protests with the present heat wave of 2022, which again, these protesters had no bearing on the race and there was no legitimate reason to validate them or even make it appear as though there was some sort of two sided debate going on within the peloton because there wasn't

As far as I know this editor made this new edit and didn't even respond to, discuss or acknowledge the suggestion that was made regarding adding a brief sentence about the protests and then linking it to the other section where additional details can be added. Instead they added in the edit that is there now, which ON THE SURFACE appears to show both sides of an argument, with the opinions from the riders and press which show a fairly even split among them. This is a manipulation of the truth as there IS NOT A SPLIT IN OPINIONS. It is in fact very one sided, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of people disagreeing with these protesters, but the citations were included that seemingly showed a split opinion with "support" for the protesters, which is patently misleading and false.

After this edit was made by editor Turini on 31 July at 12:27 that is +2,105 I was not happy about it, because it seemed to be entirely unnecessary and irrelevant and also undid the edit of BrayLockBoy, which was perfectly fine as it essentially described what happened from the Race's point of view, which was that protests interrupted the race, but were dealt with immediately. I did not edit on this as I was WARNED not to edit on the climate change paragraph, but I did make an edit separating the heat wave section from the protesters and added in relevant content about another rider, Quinn Simmons who had thrown up on the side of the road during the second week heat wave.

Then I began reading the citations, #19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and while YES THIS EDITOR DID APPEAR TO SHOW BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT it seemed more like they were once again trying to insert the false and misleading opinion that some of the riders and press supported these protests in order to FORCE IT INTO BEING A TWO SIDED EVENLY SPLIT ARGUMENT, WHICH IT WAS NOT. Again in essence, one or two riders OUT OF 176 RIDERS, had quotes taken out of context by the press, meaning the ACTUAL TRUTH IS NOBODY SUPPORTED THESE PROTESTS FROM WITHIN THE SPORT and the reason I say NOBODY supported these protests is because THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE CITATION THAT SHOWS RIDER SUPPORT, only the handful of articles that misquote the riders. This edit also seemed to show that the Editor Turini did not seem to care that the overwhelming consensus within the Tour de France community that protests and protesters that take place during the Tour should be given no screen time and basically ignored in every way with the logic behind this being if any protesters are given support or their message gets validated, gets repeated or gets mentioned then it means the protest has succeeded and it will encourage future protests at future Tours which is the last thing the sport wants to see happen.

I was WARNED not to edit on the climate change protests, SO I DIDN'T, but I did make the edit regarding Quinn Simmons who was suffering from heat exhaustion, because I did not have a citation for it, but knew it was true from a verifiable source, which was a podcast from former cyclists, but it could not be cited because Wikipedia rejects youtu.be as a valid source. Sometimes edits are made without sources that no Editor will remove because they know it is true or can easily be verified as true, and this would have been one of them.

I did this to make the point that sometimes uncited edits are more truthful than cited edits. This really seemed to anger this Turini editor because he REPORTED ME for violating the warning I was given, WHICH I DID NOT DO. He flat out lied to the admins and accused me of making an edit in the area I was warned not to edit, which was a false and misleading accusation because I was warned not to edit about the climate protesters, AND I DID NOT EDIT ABOUT THE PROTESTS, but I had every right to add in content regarding a rider suffering heat stroke during the 2nd week heat wave as it had nothing to do with the protests that happened four stages earlier.

It was also at this time that I began reading citations #19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Around this time I went onto the talk page and began complaining about these citations, noting how most of them were unnecessary and while I wanted to just erase the entire edit and revert it to the edit of BrayLockBoy, I didn't because I was told not to. As such I made a post on the talk page about it, I really wanted TO DEBATE, ARGUE AND DISCUSS these articles, I wanted to get into a good passionate, angry and real discussion about how they are entirely irrelevant and unnecessary as THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE and had no business being in the Wikipedia article of the 2022 Tour de France, especially when once again, the Editor was trying to portray a split opinion on the topic.

Another specific example of this is in citation #22 when the former rider David Millar is taken out of context, the citation FALSELY SUGGESTS that he called the protests "extremely valid". David Millar did not call the protests extremely valid, he said that the message of climate change was extremely valid but flat out said that interrupting the Tour was a bad thing, and hence should not be done, but only the "extremely valid" part of his quote is included in the citation preview to manipulate the truth and make it seem like he was calling the protests valid even though he wasn't, the part where he calls the protests bad is excluded in the citation preview.

This was one of the very few articles where a former rider's words could be manipulated to make it seem as though there was support for the protesters when in actual reality THERE WAS ZERO SUPPORT FOR INTERRUPTING THE RACE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS the Tour de France is a very progressive minded sport with many liberal minded riders and yes, absolutely they support issues like Women's rights, Black Lives Matter, the rights of Farmers, equality for immigrants, Ukraine in their defense against Russia and the fight against climate change, but THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR RACE BEING INTERRUPTED and do not want to encourage future protests happening during the race.

It was after I made this edit regarding citations on the talk page that this Turini Editor asked me if I was directing my comment towards them. As mentioned it was my intent to get into a debate, argument, discussion about these citations because I did not like the idea that they were included, but I was mad at the substance of SOME of the articles, and the way SOME of the headlines and titles were manipulating the words of riders, I wasn't necessarily mad at the Editor Turini. Well let me rephrase this, I was not mad at them for the content of the articles as they were not the one who wrote these articles, but it was this Turini editor who included them in the Race Overview on Wikipedia, which again was irrelevant to the outcome of the race, so thinking that this editor wanted TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION TO DEFEND THE CITATIONS AND GIVE GOOD REASON WHY THEY FELT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND HAVE A LEGIT PASSIONATE, ANGRY OR REAL DISCUSSION I said, "yes and no", I said no it's not directed at you because you're not the one who wrote these articles, but yes it is directed at you because you're the one who included them in this Wikipedia article.

Again, I thought they were asking me this to get into a debate about the articles, but this is not why they asked me this question. THEY ASKED THIS QUESTION SO THEY COULD REPORT ME, FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME, ACCUSE ME OF WARRING AND GET RID OF ME AS A THREAT TO THE VISION OF THE ARTICLE THEY WANTED TO SEE. It wasn't to get into a discussion, it was so they could go to the admins under the false claim they were being harassed and bothered and then add in the other false accusation that I had edited a section after I had been warned not to, which as explained earlier entirely misleading and false as I had every right to edit regarding a relevant incident from the second week.

It was at this point that I DID VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA'S RULES. It was at this point that I came to the conclusion that this editor entirely ignored my suggestion that if they want to add in more content regarding these protests that they redirect the readers to the "Stage 1-11" section, because the editor didn't want their opinion relegated to the subsections that fewer people read, but they wanted it to be right up front, regardless of the fact that it had nothing to do with the race. It was also at this point I realized they weren't asking me if I was directing my comment towards them to get into a discussion, but only to report me and at this point I had enough and made a personal addition to the talk page of Turini. I told them that I thought what they were doing was misleading and false and I also thought it was pathetic how they reported me over and over again for what basically amounted to trivial nonsense. It was enraging and flat out unprofessional so I acted very unprofessional by going to make this edit on their talk page.

This is partially why I did not appeal this suspension right away, because I did violate the rules, but as far as I'm concerned I was perfectly justified in doing so because it really really seemed like this editor really just wanted to get rid of me as a threat to the version of the truth that they wanted to see on Wikipedia and having a discussion or acknowledging the blatantly misleading information in some of the sources is not how you get rid of someone, you get rid of them by filing complaints to admins and making accusations of warring.

So yes I did violate the rules, but as far as I'm concerned there was good reason, and I think if you look closer into this incident you'll see that much of it probably should have been avoided and could have eventually been resolved without the use of admins and complaints. In fact all I was really doing was complaining about the citations and had this editor just let it go no changes would have been made anyways because I was warned not to edit that particular paragraph, but they may have had to report me and file complaints against me because I was actually reading the sources and pointing out blatantly misleading sections of them. Again, it really seemed as though this editor wanted the opinion to be included that this topic had two evenly split opinions and that isn't just misleading, it's flat out false, it was in fact a very one sided topic, the only sources to support a two sided argument had to be taken out of context and misquoted and it really has no business being included in the Wikipedia article when it had no bearing on the race and was in reality, a very one sided argument that the protesters themselves and protesting the Tour de France is a bad thing and should not be done regardless of how good the cause might be.

One thing I can't know about this editor Turini is whether or not what they were doing was intentional regarding the substance of this paragraph. Yes it is possible that they erased the edit of BrayLockBoy because they wanted to get their political opinion included, even if it was only within the citations, to make it seem like it was an unbiased edit regarding a controversial topic that had two differing opinions, even though, as mentioned, this is not a two sided topic it is a one sided topic where there are no legitimate sources of riders supporting the protests, rather just manipulations of the riders quotes and taking these quotes out of context. At the same time it could be possible that this editor was just trying too hard to include sources on a subject that was irrelevant to the outcome of the race and legitimately was trying to include as many valid citations as possible because they thought the issue of whether or not it should be included at all could be solved by adding more citations.

In closing, I was writing for Wikipedia and for The Tour de France. While I do not work for the Tour de France and I doubt many of these other editors work for the Tour de France, even if we did Wikipedia would not care and that is understandable. Wikipedia is looking out for Wikipedia and really doesn't care about the opinions of the NFL, UEFA, major league baseball or the Tour de France especially when considering all of the current political events and past historical events that you have to police and monitor, so I understand that to the admin reading this it isn't really a big deal, I just wanted to be clear that there was a reason for it, historical accuracy.

The other issue that needs to be addressed in the incident regarding the comment left on my talk page by the Editor Lugnuts and, in turn, the response that I left on their talk page. This was in regards to an edit made on the page of rider Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig. The Women's Tour de France began immediately after the men's version and I made an edit on this rider's page regarding where she finished on stage 7. I made an edit on her page after the stage ended and did not include a citation as the race was still ongoing and more content would be coming. This is common practice during the Tour de France and often times content is added with no citations at all, AS LONG AS THE INFORMATION CAN BE EASILY CONFIRMED IN THE RACE STANDINGS. In this case I added information that could be easily verified in the race standings, but just the same it's good practice to add citations for each paragraph so I was intending to come back and add a citation when the race was over the following day.

Even though this information was very easily verifiable on either the main page for the 2022 Tour de France Femmes or the 2022 Tour de France Femmes, Stage 1 to Stage 8 the editor Lugnuts decided to revert my edit under the reason that there was no citation. I came to the page for Ludwig the day after I made this edit intending to add a citation and then add more content being as stage 8 just ended and the race was over. The editor Lugnuts undid my revision on 31 July at 08:32. Nine hours later is when I came by intending to add content and citations. I noticed that he reverted my edit and thought, ok this seems a little silly, this editor has 1.5 MILLION edits and knows perfectly well that this information is factual and easily verifiable and I had seen this Editor around many times and thanked them many times for a number of different contributions, but whatever, no big deal, technically they were right as there was no citation. As such I undid their edit with the remark that I have a citation and am adding it now. Then I immediately went to the editing area to add in my citation and additional content, but was given the "error" message as another editor was editing the page. I thought it a bit weird, but maybe another editor was coming along and adding content, which would be good news being as the sport is trying to get the women riders written about the same way as men riders, equally.

It turned out it was the editor Lugnuts undoing the edit LESS THAN ONE MINUTE LATER writing the accusation, "where is the source". This seemed very, very, very petty and annoying to me, but I went back and re-edited the article, added the source and then made the comment that another editor was editing the article so my edits couldn't be saved.

Then I noticed on my talk page this Editor Lugnuts going out of his way to leave the very condescending reply on my talk page that Sources Need to be Provided, even though they know perfectly well through the dozens upon dozens of articles we had been editing regarding the 2022 Tour de France and the rider's pages as the race progressed which he was paying attention to just as I was and all of these edits had sources. Going out of his way to make this seemingly petty and childish edit to my talk page made me think that he too was mad that someone was telling the truth about the climate change protesters being bad for the sport and making the continuous claims that it was not an evenly split incident and in fact the vast overwhelming majority of the sport does not support protesters in any form.

This was the only reason I could come up with for why he would make such a petty statement on my talk page, although it also could have been that they just liked this Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig rider and was protecting her page, but this seemed less likely being as an editor with a million edits would probably know when an edit is inappropriate or questionable and needs to be sourced.

As such I went to their talk page and left him a message. I left them a message saying that I would no longer thank them for edits as I had done several times in the past, I did not care what their opinions were and would not care to read any future edits they made because he went out of their way to try and humiliate me because they got mad at something. If they wanted to embarrass me I felt I could tell them I didn't care, at all, about anything they say or do.

I also noticed, that as of 25 August 14:30 the section regarding the 2022 Tour de France on the page of Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig remains exactly as it was when my account was suspended. This Editor Lugnuts cared so much about citations and accuracy that they erased my edits and wanted to make sure the content was accurate as possible, but HE DIDN'T EVEN ADD IN THE REST OF THE RACE FOR THIS RIDER. He erased my edit about the last stage, because I made the edit as soon as the race ended before the citations were published online, and TWO WEEKS LATER THIS EDITOR WHO CARES SO MUCH ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF ARTICLES HASN'T EVEN GONE BACK AND FINISHED THE RACE RESULTS FOR THIS RIDER. It would have taken thirty seconds to add one more sentence, or add a quick citation which are certainly available by now, for this final stage. This tells me that they didn't give a damn about the page of Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig at all and was just going out of his way to make a petty attack against me that they knew they could get away with. If they truly cared about this rider, at all, they would have added in the last sentence about where she finished in the Tour.

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 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).

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This appeal is in regards to an incident which happened on while editing the 2022 Tour de France Race Overview section back on July 25, 2022. I've explained the entire incident my from point of view from beginning to end in this appeal. I realize that the Admin reviewing this might not be familiar with the topic of the Tour de France, so I will write this appeal without assuming that they are familiar with how these pages are normally written.

This incident began on July 25, at the end of the Tour de France, which took place between July 1 and July 24. The day after the race ended the editor Turini began writing the "Race Overview" section for the 2022 Tour de France. Along with several other editors we assisted this editor in cleaning up mistakes, addressing ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[clarification needed]} tags which were put up by other editors. They added a thank you message in the talk section and I went and replied to this thanking them for the contribution and telling them they did a good job with it

The next day when the section was finished I read through this article and noticed that "The Second Week" subsection seemed to contain too much information on the protesters who briefly interrupted the race. As in 30% of the second week was about these protesters, which made absolutely no sense when considering the second week is 7 days long, or approximately 30 hours long in racing time and these protesters only interfered with about ten minutes of one day. By this math they affected far less than 1% of the the race and it seemed like it would be far more relevant to add in more content about the race rather than mention protesters who, historically speaking, are never mentioned or are given at most just a passing mention of no more than a sentence in Tour de France race overviews while most of times never being mentioned at all as they happen in one form or another nearly every year.

This wasn't a big deal and whatever, but it seemed more logical to me that the race overview should be about the race and not some minor interruption caused by protesters who don't actually matter and why should a group of people who interfered with 10 minutes out of 30 hours consume some 30% of the second week subsection of the article. Plus not only that, but the Tour de France is pretty specific when it comes to protesters in that they should not get any screen time and they should not be discussed when talking about the race as doing so will only contribute to more protesters showing up at future races.

Again it wasn't a big deal and I figured I would just erase most of it and limit it to one sentence as realistically speaking no more than that would be relevant to the race overview, but that is when this incident truly began. I noticed almost immediately that the Editor Turini made the edit that seemed to justify the incident as a "two sided argument" with a split opinion as to whether or not the fans and riders supported the climate change protesters and this editor seemed to provide sources for both sides of the argument, but this was misleading as there was no split opinion over a two sided argument, there was no argument at all

Right away this seemed a bit irrelevant and pointless and the reason the protesters are there is wholly irrelevant to the race, it doesn't matter, at all, the race organizers removed the protesters and that's it, that's the only relevant information. Then I began reading some of the "sources" and noticed that some seemed to be manipulative in nature. In one such source, one rider's words, Fred Wright, were taken out of context so I went out of my way to make an edit CLARIFYING that his words were manipulated and taken out of context and after reading the source revealed that he was actually calling the protests bad. It was also stated in the citations that members of the press called the protests a good thing, when in actual reality their words were also manipulated as nobody called the protests a good thing, they said their message was valid, but later in the source articles called the act of protesting bad, YET THAT WAS OMITTED FROM THE SOURCES and omitted from the substance of the article.

As such it "seemed" as though the editor who made these edits was intentionally going out of his way, not only to give the protesters "screen time" by talking about them, but also making an extended effort to make it known that what these protesters did was "a good thing", which was incredibly misleading because none of the riders within in the race, and there was 176 to start, were calling what these protesters did "a good thing", yet the edits were making it seem like there was some sort of split decision.

This started this whole argument regarding this section because this Turini editor came back and reverted my edits, EDITS I MADE BY TAKING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE VERY SOURCES THEY PROVIDED, except I included information from the source that was less than flattering regarding the protesters, including information that about the cyclist who had his words manipulated and taken out of context.

This editor went out of their way to eliminate the factual information about the overwhelmingly negative responses the riders had about the protests and rewrote the article to once again falsely reflect that there was a split opinion over the matter and that riders were calling the protesters "good" even though they weren't and the one and only source they had regarding this was from a rider who supposedly did actually wasn't but in fact had his quote manipulated and taken out of context.

To be clear this Turini editor did mention the counterpoint to the other side of the argument that other riders were calling the protesters imbeciles and idiots, but this seemed to be because he was trying to FORCE the point across that it was an equally split argument with some calling them good and some calling them bad WHICH WAS A DELIBERATE MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH as IT WAS NOT an evenly split opinion.

As such, on 26 July 15:42 Wikipedia time I removed -2,199 characters of data and just erased all information regarding the protests and only left ONE SENTENCE and ONE CITATION remaining in the substance of the article, which made sense to me when considering that "The Second Week" subsection was supposed to cover seven days, and considering the entire section was only three paragraphs long it made sense to me, that this borderline irrelevant incident on stage 10 should only have one sentence.

Not only that, but there is precedent for this sort of thing from previous race overviews. MOST TIMES PROTESTERS ARE NOT MENTIONED AT ALL. During the 2018 Tour de France protests were mentioned, but this was only because IT DID CAUSE THE RACE TO BE STOPPED for a notable amount of time being as the riders were accidentally maced by the police, but even then there was only a brief mention, with ONE CITATION, and once again it was only mentioned because the riders were maced so it affected the race.

After I removed all mentions of these protests being good or bad and simply left it with a one sentence reply is when this Turini filed a complaint about WARRING against me with an Admin, which was a bit enraging because it seemed absolutely lazy and ridiculous to go filing a very serious WARRING complaint over a section that has NO RELEVANCE ON THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE. It honestly seemed like this editor just really really wanted to get the point across that they felt, in their personal opinion, that the protests were a good thing.

After this complaint was filed I decided to stay out of it thinking it wasn't worth my time and the race had just ended and besides it wasn't worth fighting about because over the next month or two new articles and citations would be coming out and anything that was intentionally manipulated out of context could be addressed at a later time.

I received a WARNING, from a Wikipedia Admin not to address the paragraph that had to do with climate change protests. I READ THE WARNING, I UNDERSTOOD THE WARNING AND I ABIDED BY THE WARNING.

In the meantime the problem seemed to resolve itself when yet another Editor, an editor I had never heard of named "BrayLockBoy" came along and made an edit at 21:10, 26 July of +590 characters and seemingly resolved the entire problem. He added in a brief, seemingly accurate description of events with a proper citation and that SEEMED TO RESOLVE IT.

This editor has over 10,000 edits, but this was the first edit this person made regarding this particular topic and it seemed to resolve it. I thought the issue was over and done with at this point. It's not so much that this new edit was more aligned with my personal view on the subject, rather it was that this edit from BrayLockBoy basically told the situation exactly as it happened and I'm paraphrasing here but they basically edited "there were a bunch of protesters interrupting the race, the Tour officials dealt with them and had them removed and the race continued" which in essence was exactly what happened so I offered no argument to the new edit.

As such the next day on the Talk page while this incident was being discussed I made the mention that it was surprising NONE OF US THOUGHT OF IT AT THE TIME, but this issue also could have been resolved as simply as providing a link to the more detailed description page. Neither I nor any other editor mentioned it but this could have resolved the issue by adding in one sentence about the incident, but providing a link to a different page where more details could be added if this editor really wanted to expand upon this irrelevant incident any further.

As Admins who police ALL OF WIKIPEDIA you may not be familiar with how the Tour de France is written each year. The 'Race Overview' section where this argument took place is supposed to be a clean, quick yet detailed description of race events that can be short or long depending on the race and how much detail the editor writing it wants to cite and include. At the very top of EVERY RACE OVERVIEW section there are always links to the expanded race detail area of stages 1-11 and then stages 12-21.

But again, the editor BrayLockBoy seemed to resolve the issue so it became moot, seemingly.

But then a few days later the Editor Turini apparently decided that they didn't like the edit of BrayLockBoy and decided to not only go back in and re-enter the misleading sources and irrelevant information, but also to connect the climate change protester paragraph from stage 10 together with the heat wave paragraph which was spread out over the entire second week. This seemed important to this editor to connect the heat wave to the climate change protesters which really has nothing to do with the Tour de France but instead was done to validate the protesters.

This Turini editor also erased a contribution I included at the end of the heat wave paragraph where I cited a previous Tour with heat wave, of which there are several dozen being as the race is run in July, but specifically the 1968 Tour De France, which I included because I think it's a good idea to include links to the history of the sport for new fans who might want to click on it to learn more. This was erased for no valid reason and the only realistic assumption I can make as to why it was erased was to have the added shock value of validating the climate protests with the present heat wave of 2022, which again, these protesters had no bearing on the race and there was no legitimate reason to validate them or even make it appear as though there was some sort of two sided debate going on within the peloton because there wasn't

As far as I know this editor made this new edit and didn't even respond to, discuss or acknowledge the suggestion that was made regarding adding a brief sentence about the protests and then linking it to the other section where additional details can be added. Instead they added in the edit that is there now, which ON THE SURFACE appears to show both sides of an argument, with the opinions from the riders and press which show a fairly even split among them. This is a manipulation of the truth as there IS NOT A SPLIT IN OPINIONS. It is in fact very one sided, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of people disagreeing with these protests, but the citations were included that seemingly showed a split opinion with "support" for the protesters, which is patently misleading and false. There was some support for the importance of addressing climate change, BUT ZERO SUPPORT FOR DISRUPTING THE RACE.

After this edit was made by editor Turini on 31 July at 12:27 that is +2,105 I was not happy about it, because it seemed to be entirely unnecessary and irrelevant and also undid the edit of BrayLockBoy, which was perfectly fine as it essentially described what happened from the Race's point of view, which was that protests interrupted the race, but were dealt with immediately. I did not edit on this as I was WARNED not to edit on the climate change paragraph, but I did make an edit separating the heat wave section from the protesters and added in relevant content about another rider, Quinn Simmons who had thrown up on the side of the road during the second week heat wave.

Then I began reading the citations, #19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and while YES THIS EDITOR DID APPEAR TO SHOW BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT it seemed more like they were once again trying to insert the false and misleading opinion that some of the riders and press supported these protests in order to FORCE IT INTO BEING A TWO SIDED EVENLY SPLIT ARGUMENT, WHICH IT WAS NOT. Again in essence, one or two riders OUT OF 176 RIDERS, had quotes taken out of context by the press, meaning the ACTUAL TRUTH IS NOBODY SUPPORTED THESE PROTESTS FROM WITHIN THE SPORT and the reason I say NOBODY supported these protests is because THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE CITATION THAT SHOWS RIDER SUPPORT, only the handful of articles that misquote the riders.

This edit also seemed to show that the Editor Turini did not seem to care that the overwhelming consensus within the Tour de France community that protests and protesters that take place during the Tour should be given no screen time and basically ignored in every way with the logic behind this being if any protesters are given support or their message gets validated, gets repeated or gets mentioned then it means the protest has succeeded and it will encourage future protests at future Tours which is the last thing the sport wants to see happen.

I was WARNED not to edit on the climate change protests, SO I DIDN'T, but I did make the edit regarding Quinn Simmons who was suffering from heat exhaustion, because I did not have a citation for it, but knew it was true from a verifiable source, which was a podcast from former cyclists, but it could not be cited because Wikipedia rejects youtu.be as a valid source. Sometimes edits are made without sources that no Editor will remove because they know it is true or can easily be verified as true, and this would have been one of them.

I did this to make the point that sometimes uncited edits are more truthful than cited edits. This really seemed to anger this Turini editor because he then appeared to REPORT ME for violating the warning I was given, WHICH I DID NOT DO. If they did report me to an Admin for violating the warning then this was a flat out lie to the admins because I was warned not to edit about the climate protesters, AND I DID NOT EDIT ABOUT THE PROTESTS, but I had every right to add in content regarding a rider suffering heat stroke during the 2nd week heat wave as it had nothing to do with the protests that happened four stages earlier.

It was also at this time that I began reading citations #19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Around this time I went onto the talk page and began complaining about these citations, noting how most of them were unnecessary and while I wanted to just erase the entire edit and revert it to the edit of BrayLockBoy, I didn't because I was told not to. As such I made a post on the talk page about it, I really wanted TO DEBATE, ARGUE AND DISCUSS these articles, I wanted to get into a good passionate, angry and real discussion about how they were entirely irrelevant and unnecessary as THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE and had no business being in the Wikipedia article of the 2022 Tour de France, especially when once again, the Editor was trying to portray a split opinion on the topic.

Another specific example of this is in citation #22 when the former rider David Millar is taken out of context, the citation FALSELY SUGGESTS that he called the protests "extremely valid". David Millar did not call the protests extremely valid, he said that the message of climate change was extremely valid but flat out said that interrupting the Tour was a bad thing, and hence should not be done, but only the "extremely valid" part of his quote is included in the citation preview to manipulate the truth and make it seem like he was calling the protests valid even though he wasn't, the part where he calls the protests bad is excluded in the citation preview.

This was one of the very few articles where a former rider's words could be manipulated to make it seem as though there was support for the protesters when in actual reality THERE WAS ZERO SUPPORT FOR INTERRUPTING THE RACE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS the Tour de France is a very progressive minded sport with many liberal minded riders and yes, absolutely they support issues like Women's rights, Black Lives Matter, the rights of Farmers, equality for immigrants, Ukraine in their defense against Russia and the fight against climate change, but THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR RACE BEING INTERRUPTED and do not want to encourage future protests happening during the race.

It was after I made this edit regarding citations on the talk page that this Turini Editor asked me if I was directing my comment towards them. As mentioned it was my intent to get into a debate, argument, discussion about these citations because I did not like the idea that they were included, but I was mad at the substance of SOME of the articles, and the way SOME of the headlines and titles were manipulating the words of riders, I wasn't necessarily mad at the Editor Turini. Well let me rephrase this, I was not mad at them for the content of the articles as they were not the one who wrote these articles, but it was this Turini editor who included them in the Race Overview on Wikipedia, which again was irrelevant to the outcome of the race, so thinking that this editor wanted TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION TO DEFEND THE CITATIONS AND GIVE GOOD REASON WHY THEY FELT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND HAVE A LEGIT PASSIONATE, ANGRY OR REAL DISCUSSION I said, "yes and no", I said no it's not directed at you because you're not the one who wrote these articles, but yes it is directed at you because you're the one who included them in this Wikipedia article.

Again, I thought they were asking me this to get into a debate about the articles, but this is not why they asked me this question. THEY ASKED THIS QUESTION SO THEY COULD REPORT ME, FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME, ACCUSE ME OF WARRING AND GET RID OF ME AS A THREAT TO THE VISION OF THE ARTICLE THEY WANTED TO SEE. It wasn't to get into a discussion, it was so they could go to the admins under the false claim they were being harassed and bothered and then add in the other false accusation that I had edited a section after I had been warned not to, which as explained earlier entirely misleading and false as I had every right to edit regarding a relevant incident from the second week.

It was at this point that I came to the conclusion that this editor entirely ignored my suggestion that if they want to add in more content regarding these protests that they redirect the readers to the "Stage 1-11" section, because the editor didn't want their opinion relegated to the subsections that fewer people read, but they wanted it to be right up front, regardless of the fact that it had nothing to do with the race. It was also at this point I realized they weren't asking me if I was directing my comment towards them to get into a discussion, but only to report me and at this point I had enough and made a personal addition to the talk page of Turini. I told them that I thought what they were doing was misleading and false and I also thought it was pathetic how they reported me over and over again for what basically amounted to trivial nonsense. It was enraging and flat out unprofessional so I acted very unprofessional by going to make this edit on their talk page.

It really seemed like this editor really just wanted to get rid of me as a threat to the version of the truth that they wanted to see on Wikipedia and having a discussion or acknowledging the blatantly misleading information in some of the sources is not how you get rid of someone, you get rid of them by filing complaints to admins and making accusations of warring.

This may have violated the rules of Wikipedia, but as far as I'm concerned there was good reason, and I think if you look closer into this incident you'll see that much of it probably should have been avoided and could have eventually been resolved without the use of admins and complaints. In fact all I was really doing was complaining about the citations and had this editor just let it go no changes would have been made anyways because I was warned not to edit that particular paragraph, but they may have had to report me and file complaints against me because I was actually reading the sources and pointing out blatantly misleading sections of them.

It really seemed as though this editor wanted the opinion to be included that this topic had two evenly split opinions and that isn't just misleading, it's flat out false, it was in fact a very one sided topic, the only sources to support a two sided argument had to be taken out of context and misquoted and it really has no business being included in the Wikipedia article when it had no bearing on the race and was in reality, a very one sided argument that the protesters themselves and protesting the Tour de France is a bad thing and should not be done regardless of how good the cause might be.

One thing I can't know about this editor Turini is whether or not what they were doing was intentional regarding the substance of this paragraph. Yes it is possible that they erased the edit of BrayLockBoy because they wanted to get their political opinion included, even if it was only within the citations, to make it seem like it was an unbiased edit regarding a controversial topic that had two differing opinions, even though, as mentioned, this is not a two sided topic it is a one sided topic where there are no legitimate sources of riders supporting the protests, rather just manipulations of the riders quotes and taking these quotes out of context. At the same time it could be possible that this editor was just trying too hard to include sources on a subject that was irrelevant to the outcome of the race and legitimately was trying to include as many valid citations as possible because they thought the issue of whether or not it should be included at all could be solved by adding more citations.

In closing, I was writing for Wikipedia and for The Tour de France. While I do not work for the Tour de France and I doubt many of these other editors work for the Tour de France, even if we did Wikipedia would not care and that is understandable. Wikipedia is looking out for Wikipedia and really doesn't care about the opinions of the NFL, UEFA, major league baseball or the Tour de France especially when considering all of the current political events and past historical events that you have to police and monitor, so I understand that to the admin reading this it isn't really a big deal, I just wanted to be clear that there was a reason for it: historical accuracy.

The other issue that needs to be addressed in the incident regarding the comment left on my talk page by the Editor Lugnuts and, in turn, the response that I left on their talk page. This was in regards to an edit made on the page of rider Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig. The Women's Tour de France began immediately after the men's version and I made an edit on this rider's page regarding where she finished on stage 7. I made an edit on her page after the stage ended and did not include a citation as the race was still ongoing and more content would be coming. This is common practice during the Tour de France and often times content is added with no citations at all, AS LONG AS THE INFORMATION CAN BE EASILY CONFIRMED IN THE RACE STANDINGS. In this case I added information that could be easily verified in the race standings, but just the same it's good practice to add citations for each paragraph so I was intending to come back and add a citation when the race was over the following day.

Even though this information was very easily verifiable on either the main page for the 2022 Tour de France Femmes or the 2022 Tour de France Femmes, Stage 1 to Stage 8 the editor Lugnuts decided to revert my edit under the reason that there was no citation. I came to the page for Ludwig the day after I made this edit intending to add a citation and then add more content being as stage 8 just ended and the race was over. The editor Lugnuts undid my revision on 31 July at 08:32. Nine hours later is when I came by intending to add content and citations. I noticed that he reverted my edit and thought, ok this seems a little silly, this editor has 1.5 MILLION edits and knows perfectly well that this information is factual and easily verifiable and I had seen this Editor around many times and thanked them many times for a number of different contributions, but whatever, no big deal, technically they were right as there was no citation. As such I undid their edit with the remark that I have a citation and am adding it now. Then I immediately went to the editing area to add in my citation and additional content, but was given the "error" message as another editor was editing the page. I thought it a bit weird, but maybe another editor was coming along and adding content, which would be good news being as the sport is trying to get the women riders written about the same way as men riders, equally.

It turned out it was the editor Lugnuts undoing the edit LESS THAN ONE MINUTE LATER writing the accusation, "where is the source". This seemed very, very, very petty and annoying to me, but I went back and re-edited the article, added the source and then made the comment that another editor was editing the article so my edits couldn't be saved.

Then I noticed on my talk page this Editor Lugnuts going out of his way to leave the very condescending reply on my talk page that Sources Need to be Provided, even though they know perfectly well through the dozens upon dozens of articles we had been editing regarding the 2022 Tour de France and the rider's pages as the race progressed which he was paying attention to just as I was and all of these edits had sources. Going out of his way to make this seemingly petty and childish edit to my talk page made me think that they too were mad that someone was telling the truth about the climate change protesters being bad for the sport and making the continuous claims that it was not an evenly split incident and in fact the vast overwhelming majority of the sport does not support protesters in any form.

This was the only reason I could come up with for why they would make such a petty statement on my talk page, although it also could have been that they just liked this Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig rider and was protecting her page, but this seemed less likely being as an editor with a million edits would probably know when an edit is inappropriate or questionable and needs to be sourced.

As such I went to their talk page and left them a message. I left them a message saying that I would no longer thank them for edits as I had done several times in the past, I did not care what their opinions were and would not care to read any future edits they made because he went out of their way to try and humiliate me because they got mad at something. If they wanted to embarrass me I felt I could tell them I didn't care, at all, about anything they say or do.

I also noticed, that as of 25 August 14:30 the section regarding the 2022 Tour de France on the page of Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig remains exactly as it was when my account was suspended. This Editor Lugnuts cared so much about citations and accuracy that they erased my edits and wanted to make sure the content was accurate as possible, but DIDN'T EVEN ADD IN THE REST OF THE RACE FOR THIS RIDER. They erased my edit about the last stage and now THREE WEEKS LATER THIS EDITOR WHO CARES SO MUCH ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF ARTICLES HASN'T EVEN GONE BACK AND FINISHED THE RACE RESULTS FOR THIS RIDER. It would have taken thirty seconds to add one more sentence, or add a quick citation which are certainly available by now, for this final stage. This tells me that they didn't give a damn about the page of Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig at all and was just going out of their way to make a petty attack against me that they knew they could get away with. If they truly cared about this rider, at all, they would have added in the last sentence about where she finished in the Tour following the final stage.

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

tl;dr. WP:WALLOFTEXT. See WP:GAB if you want to try again; no admin volunteer is going to wade into anything like this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:29, 26 August 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.

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).

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This appeal is in regards to an incident which happened on while editing the 2022 Tour de France Race Overview section back on July 25-29, 2022.

I didn't realize that ALL Admins are volunteers, that seems a bit strange as you'd think Wikipedia could pay a stipend of $10,000 a year for the work being done, but this explains the rules and guidelines regarding tl;dr and WALLOFTEXT as volunteers don't have time to waste with potential nonsense. Being as this incident took place over several days my initial appeal was 46 paragraphs, took almost ten minutes to read and I expected it to be several days before I heard back, but it was too long and immediately rejected. I've shortened it to 28 paragraphs and should only take five minutes to read:

This incident began on July 25, at the end of the Tour de France, which took place between July 1 and July 24. The day after the race ended the editor Turini began writing the "Race Overview" section for the 2022 Tour de France. Along with several other editors we assisted this editor in cleaning up mistakes, addressing ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[clarification needed]} tags which were put up by other editors. He added a thank you message in the talk section and I went and replied to this thanking him for the contribution and telling him he did a good job with it.

The next day when the section was finished I read through this article and noticed that "The Second Week" subsection seemed to contain too much information on the protesters who briefly interrupted the race. As in 30% of the second week was about these protesters, which made absolutely no sense when considering the second week is 7 days long, or approximately 30 hours long in racing time and these protesters only interfered with about ten minutes of one day. By this math they affected far less than 1% of the the race and it seemed like it would be far more relevant to add in more content about the race rather than mention protesters who, historically speaking, are never mentioned or are given at most just a passing mention of no more than a sentence in Tour de France race overviews while most of times never being mentioned at all as they happen in one form or another nearly every year.

This wasn't a big deal and whatever, but it seemed more logical to just erase most of it and limit it to one sentence as realistically speaking no more than that would be relevant to the race overview, but that is when this incident truly began. I noticed almost immediately that the Editor Turini made the edit that seemed to justify the incident as a "two sided argument" with a split opinion as to whether or not the fans and riders supported the climate change protesters and this editor seemed to provide sources for both sides of the argument, but this was misleading as there was no split opinion over a two sided argument, there was no argument at all

Right away this seemed a bit irrelevant and pointless and the reason the protesters are there is wholly irrelevant to the race, it doesn't matter, at all, the race organizers removed the protesters and that's it, that's the only relevant information. Then I began reading some of the "sources" and noticed that some seemed to be manipulative in nature. In one such source, one rider's words, Fred Wright, were taken out of context so I went out of my way to make an edit CLARIFYING that his words were manipulated and taken out of context and after reading the source revealed that he was actually calling the protests bad. It was also stated in the citations that members of the press called the protests a good thing, when in actual reality their words were also manipulated as nobody called the protests a good thing, they said their message was valid, but later in the source articles called the act of protesting bad,

As such it "seemed" as though the editor was incredibly misleading because none of the riders within in the race, and there was 176 to start, were calling what these protesters did "a good thing", yet the edits were making it seem like there was some sort of split decision. This started this whole argument regarding this section because this Turini editor came back and reverted my edits, EDITS I MADE BY TAKING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE VERY SOURCES TURINI PROVIDED including information that about the cyclist who had his words manipulated and taken out of context.

As such, on 26 July 15:42 Wikipedia time I removed -2,199 characters of data and just erased all information regarding the protests and only left ONE SENTENCE and ONE CITATION remaining in the substance of the article, which made sense to me when considering that "The Second Week" subsection was supposed to cover seven days, and considering the entire section was only three paragraphs long it made sense to me, that this borderline irrelevant incident on stage 10 should only have one sentence at the most.

Not only that, but there is precedent for this sort of thing from previous race overviews. MOST TIMES PROTESTERS ARE NOT MENTIONED AT ALL. During the 2018 Tour de France protests were mentioned, but this was only because IT DID CAUSE THE RACE TO BE STOPPED for a notable amount of time being as the riders were accidentally maced by the police, but even then there was only a brief mention, with ONE CITATION, and once again it was only mentioned because the riders were maced so it affected the race.

After I removed all mentions of these protests being good or bad and simply left it with a one sentence reply is when this Turini filed a complaint about WARRING against me with an Admin, which was a bit enraging because it seemed absolutely lazy and ridiculous to go filing a very serious WARRING complaint over a section that has NO RELEVANCE ON THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE. It honestly seemed like this editor just really really wanted to get the point across that they felt, in their personal opinion, that the protests were a good thing.

After this complaint was filed I decided to stay out of it thinking it wasn't worth my time or unnecessary social media type stress and the race had just ended and besides it wasn't worth fighting about because over the next month or two new articles and citations would be coming out and anything that was intentionally manipulated out of context could be addressed at a later time.

I received a WARNING, from a Wikipedia Admin not to address the paragraph that had to do with climate change protests. I read the warning, I understood the warning and I abided by the warning. In the meantime the problem seemed to resolve itself when yet another Editor, an editor I had never heard of named "BrayLockBoy" came along and made an edit at 21:10, 26 July of +590 characters and seemingly resolved the entire problem. He added in a brief, seemingly accurate description of events with a proper citation and that SEEMED TO RESOLVE IT. This editor has over 10,000 edits, but this was the first edit this person made regarding this particular topic and it seemed to resolve it. I thought the issue was over and done with at this point.

As such the next day on the Talk page while this incident was being discussed I made the mention that it was surprising NONE OF US THOUGHT OF IT AT THE TIME, but this issue also could have been resolved as simply as providing a link to the more detailed description page. Neither I nor any other editor mentioned it but this could have resolved the issue by adding in one sentence about the incident, but providing a link to a different page where more details could be added if this editor really wanted to expand upon this irrelevant incident any further.

As Admins who police ALL OF WIKIPEDIA you may not be familiar with how the Tour de France is written each year. The 'Race Overview' section where this argument took place is supposed to be a clean, quick yet detailed description of race events that can be short or long depending on the race and how much detail the editor writing it wants to cite and include. At the very top of EVERY RACE OVERVIEW section there are always links to the expanded race detail area of stages 1-11 and then stages 12-21. But again, the editor BrayLockBoy seemed to resolve the issue so it became moot, seemingly.

Then a few days later the Editor Turini apparently decided that they didn't like the edit of BrayLockBoy and decided to not only go back in and re-enter the misleading sources and irrelevant information, but also to connect the climate change protester paragraph from stage 10 together with the heat wave paragraph which was spread out over the entire week. This seemed important to this editor to connect the heat wave to the climate change protesters which really has nothing to do with the Tour de France but instead was done to validate the protesters.

This Turini editor also erased a contribution I included at the end of the heat wave paragraph where I cited a previous Tour with heat wave, of which there are several dozen being as the race is run in July, but specifically the 1968 Tour de France, which I included because I think it's a good idea to include links to the history of the sport for new fans who might want to click on it to learn more. This was erased for no valid reason and the only realistic assumption I can make as to why it was erased was to have the added shock value of validating the climate protests with the present heat wave of 2022, which again, these protesters had no bearing on the race and there was no legitimate reason to validate them or even make it appear as though there was some sort of two sided debate going on within the peloton because there wasn't

After this edit was made by editor Turini on 31 July at 12:27 that is +2,105 I was not happy about it, because it seemed to be entirely unnecessary and irrelevant and also undid the edit of BrayLockBoy, which was perfectly fine as it essentially described what happened from the Race's point of view, which was that protests interrupted the race, but were dealt with immediately. I did not edit on this as I was WARNED not to edit on the climate change paragraph, but I did make an edit separating the heat wave section from the protesters and added in relevant content about another rider, Quinn Simmons who had thrown up on the side of the road during the second week heat wave.

I was WARNED not to edit on the climate change protests, SO I DIDN'T, but I did make the edit regarding Quinn Simmons who was suffering from heat exhaustion, because I did not have a citation for it, but knew it was true from a verifiable source, which was a podcast from former cyclists, but it could not be cited because Wikipedia rejects youtu.be as a valid source. Sometimes edits are made without sources that no Editor will remove because they know it is true or can easily be verified as true, and this would have been one of them. I did this to make the point that sometimes uncited edits are more truthful than cited edits.

It was also at this time that I began reading citations #19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Around this time I went onto the talk page and began complaining about these citations, noting how most of them were unnecessary and while I wanted to just erase the entire edit and revert it to the edit of BrayLockBoy, I didn't because I was told not to. As such I made a post on the talk page about it, I really wanted TO DEBATE, ARGUE AND DISCUSS these articles, I wanted to get into a good passionate, angry and real discussion about how they are entirely irrelevant and unnecessary as THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE and had no business being in the Wikipedia article of the 2022 Tour de France, especially when once again, the Editor was trying to portray a split opinion on the topic.

A specific example of this is in citation #22 when the former rider David Millar is taken out of context, the citation FALSELY SUGGESTS that he called the protests "extremely valid". David Millar did not call the protests extremely valid, he said that the message of climate change was extremely valid but flat out said that interrupting the Tour was a bad thing, and hence should not be done, but only the "extremely valid" part of his quote is included in the citation preview to manipulate the truth and make it seem like he was calling the protests valid even though he wasn't, the part where he calls the protests bad is excluded in the citation preview.

This was one of the very few articles where a former rider's words could be manipulated to make it seem as though there was support for the protesters when in actual reality THERE WAS ZERO SUPPORT FOR INTERRUPTING THE RACE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS the Tour de France is a very progressive minded sport with many liberal minded riders and yes, absolutely they support issues like Women's rights, Black Lives Matter, the rights of Farmers, equality for immigrants, Ukraine in their defense against Russia and the fight against climate change, but THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR RACE BEING INTERRUPTED and do not want to encourage future protests happening during the race.

It was after I made this edit regarding citations on the talk page that this Turini Editor asked me if I was directing my comment towards them. As mentioned it was my intent to get into a debate, argument, discussion about these citations because I did not like the idea that they were included, but I was mad at the substance of SOME of the articles, and the way SOME of the headlines and titles were manipulating the words of riders, I wasn't necessarily mad at the Editor Turini. Well let me rephrase this, I was not mad at them for the content of the articles as they were not the one who wrote these articles, but it was this Turini editor who included them in the Race Overview on Wikipedia, which again was irrelevant to the outcome of the race, so thinking that this editor wanted TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION TO DEFEND THE CITATIONS AND GIVE GOOD REASON WHY THEY FELT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND HAVE A LEGIT PASSIONATE, ANGRY OR REAL DISCUSSION I said, "yes and no", I said no it's not directed at you because you're not the one who wrote these articles, but yes it is directed at you because you're the one who included them in this Wikipedia article.

I thought they were asking me this to get into a debate about the articles, but this is not why they asked me this question. THEY ASKED THIS QUESTION SO THEY COULD REPORT ME, FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME, ACCUSE ME OF WARRING AND GET RID OF ME AS A THREAT TO THE VISION OF THE ARTICLE THEY WANTED TO SEE. It wasn't to get into a discussion, it was so they could go to the admins under the false claim they were being harassed and bothered and then add in the other false accusation that I had edited a section after I had been warned not to, which as explained earlier entirely misleading and false as I had every right to edit regarding a relevant incident from the second week.

This really seemed to anger this Turini editor because they REPORTED ME for either warring or violating the warning I was given, WHICH I DID NOT DO, as I was warned not to edit about the climate protesters, AND I DID NOT EDIT ABOUT THE PROTESTS, but I had every right to add in content regarding a rider suffering heat stroke during the 2nd week heat wave as it had nothing to do with the protests that happened four stages earlier. This was neither warring nor violating the warning I was given. It was at this point that I DID VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA'S RULES as I realized they weren't asking me if I was directing my comment towards them to get into a discussion, but only to report me and at this point I had enough and made a personal addition to the talk page of Turini. I told them that I thought what they were doing was misleading and false and I also thought it was pathetic how they reported me over and over again for what basically amounted to trivial nonsense. It was enraging and flat out unprofessional so I acted very unprofessional by going to make this edit on their talk page.

This is partially why I did not appeal this suspension right away, because I did violate the rules, but as far as I'm concerned I was perfectly justified in doing so because it really really seemed like this editor really just wanted to get rid of me as a threat to the version of the truth that they wanted to see on Wikipedia and having a discussion or acknowledging the blatantly misleading information in some of the sources is not how you get rid of someone, you get rid of them by filing complaints to admins and making accusations of warring.

So yes I did violate the rules, but as far as I'm concerned there was good reason: HISTORICAL ACCURACY. One thing I can't know about this editor is whether or not what they were doing was intentional regarding the substance of this paragraph. Yes it is possible that they erased the edit of BrayLockBoy because they wanted to get their political opinion included, even if it was only within the citations, to make it seem like it was an unbiased edit regarding a controversial topic that had two differing opinions, even though, as mentioned, this is not a two sided topic it is a one sided topic where there are no legitimate sources of riders supporting the protests, rather just manipulations of the riders quotes and taking these quotes out of context. At the same time it could be possible that this editor was just trying too hard to include sources on a subject that was irrelevant to the outcome of the race and legitimately was trying to include as many valid citations as possible because they thought the issue of whether or not it should be included at all could be solved by adding more citations. Either way the obsessive complaining and warring accusations made it seem as though this Editor just wanted to get rid of someone who was interfering with the version of history they wanted to see.

The other issue that needs to be addressed in the incident regarding the comment left on my talk page by the Editor Lugnuts and, in turn, the response that I left on their talk page. This was in regards to an edit made on the page of rider Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig. The Women's Tour de France began immediately after the men's version and I made an edit on this rider's page regarding where she finished on stage 7. I made an edit on her page after the stage ended and did not include a citation as the race was still ongoing and more content would be coming. I came to the page for Ludwig the day after I made this edit intending to add a citation and then add more content being as stage 8 just ended and the race was over.

The editor Lugnuts undid my revision on 31 July at 08:32. Nine hours later is when I came by intending to add content and citations. I noticed that he reverted my edit and thought, ok this seems a little silly, this editor has 1.5 MILLION edits and knows perfectly well that this information is factual and easily verifiable and I had seen this Editor around many times and thanked them many times for a number of different contributions, but whatever, no big deal, technically they were right as there was no citation. As such I undid their edit with the remark that I have a citation and am adding it now. Then I immediately went to the editing area to add in my citation and additional content, but was given the "error" message as another editor was editing the page. I thought it a bit weird, but maybe another editor was coming along and adding content, which would be good news being as the sport is trying to get the women riders written about the same way as men riders, equally. It turned out it was the editor Lugnuts undoing the edit LESS THAN ONE MINUTE LATER writing the accusation, "where is the source". This seemed very, very, very petty and annoying to me, but I went back and re-edited the article, added the source and then made the comment that another editor was editing the article so my edits couldn't be saved.

Then I noticed on my talk page this Editor Lugnuts going out of his way to leave the very condescending reply on my talk page that Sources Need to be Provided, even though they know perfectly well through the dozens upon dozens of articles we had been editing regarding the 2022 Tour de France and the rider's pages as the race progressed which he was paying attention to just as I was and all of these edits had sources. Going out of his way to make this seemingly petty and childish edit to my talk page made me think he was deliberately attacking me. As such I went to their talk page and left him a message. I left them a message saying that I would no longer thank them for edits as I had done several times in the past, I did not care what their opinions were and would not care to read any future edits they made because he went out of their way to try and humiliate me because they got mad at something.

I also noticed, that a month later the section regarding the 2022 Tour de France on the page of Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig remained exactly as it was when my account was suspended. This Editor Lugnuts cared so much about citations and accuracy that they erased my edits and wanted to make sure the content was accurate as possible, but THEY DIDN'T EVEN ADD IN THE REST OF THE RACE FOR THIS RIDER. It would have taken thirty seconds to add one more sentence to complete this section, or add a quick citation which are certainly available by now, for this final stage. This tells me that they didn't give a damn about the page of this rider at all and was just going out of his way to make a petty attack against me that they knew they could get away with. If they truly cared about this rider, at all, they would have added in the last sentence about where she finished in the Tour.

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is still too long. Anyway, in your next unblock request, do not include the entire back story to how it happened, because it does not matter. Focus on what you did and do not include the actions of others, as it is your actions which interest us. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 2 September 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.

. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 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).

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This appeal is in regards to an incident which happened on while editing the 2022 Tour de France Race Overview section back on July 25-31, 2022.

My previous appeals were about 50 and 30 paragraphs long, which the previous Admins told me was tl:dr, so I shortened this appeal to 12 paragraphs and it covers how I believe I was acting in Good Faith the entire time and the Editor who was reporting me over and over again was doing so in Bad Faith to eliminate opposition to personal political opinions they wanted to include without opposition.

According to the ACTIVE BLOCKS on my account I am suspended because of "personal attacks or violation of harassment policy" and "disruptive editing". I will say that my previous appeals did explain why both of these blocks are wrong and unnecessary but I will do as the previous admin said and shorten my appeal.

To address the personal attacks or violation of harassment policy, I definitely didn't violate the harassment policy, but I may have been baited into violating the personal attack policy depending on how the personal attack policy is defined.

I also understand that Wikipedia operates on Good Faith so I will also explain why I was acting in good faith and this other editor was most decisively acting in bad faith.

By this I mean there was an incident on the 2022 Tour de France page in which the Editor Turini made several bad faith warring complaint(s) against me for no legitimate reason(s). This editor became enraged that I challenged the edits they were making, which were clearly for political reasons as they really wanted to get their opinion into the text of the article that they felt the protests were a good thing and they even went so far as to manipulate sources and take quotes out of context (on more than one occasion) in order to support the opinion they were trying to include, which they had to do because there was no legitimate sources which backed up the claims they were making about present or former riders supporting the recent protests, so they had to include sources that took riders out of context.

The issue of the climate change protesters had barely even begun to be discussed by the time this irrational warring complaint was filed and in all honesty shouldn't have even been an issue as precedent shows that protesters of any kind are virtually never mentioned in the Race overview section of the Tour de France unless their actions cause a direct, extended and significant disruption. Protests happen every single year in the Tour de France and are almost never mentioned, with a most recent mentioned example of this being 2018 Tour de France where one sentence and one citation was included because the riders were accidentally MACED by the police and that was a big deal that caused a noteworthy delay. This 2018 protest was considerably more disruptive than this irrelevant 2022 protest.

As a result of these warring complaints an Admin solved it immediately by telling me not to edit anything to do with climate change protesters, which wasn't a big deal and fine ok and was the end of the issue and I didn't edit anything regarding the protests again after this point.

A day or two later another incident happened in which a perfectly reasonable and entirely accurate edit by an editor named BrayLockBoy added one sentence which briefly explained the protests and this seemed to resolve the entire issue. This relevant edit was erased and replaced by Editor Turini who was, for the third or fourth time attempting to post/edit information that was at the very least misleading and entirely irrelevant to the race outcome. It was an attempt to include their opinion about the climate change protesters and to include information that had no bearing on the outcome of the race, as well as to add excessive citations, at least one of which was misleading in nature.

I do not mean they were posting false information, I mean they were creating an argument where none existed, implying that there was some sort of debate amongst the riders about protests even though no such debate exists now or has ever existed.

He took the present rider Fred Wright and former rider David Millar and allowed known misquotes to form an argument that didn't exist. They implied in the citation previews that both of these riders supported what the protesters are doing, when if you actually read the article neither person supported protesting the Tour de France. Zero riders do. The only sources Turini provided which showed a debate were these two misleading and misquoted sources. That is the evidence they used to suggest some sort of debate was going on in the sport, when in reality there is no debate, it is not an issue and isn't real, at all, nobody anywhere within this entire sport supports their race being interrupted, regardless of how noble the cause might be and saying otherwise is false and misleading and BAD FAITH EDITING and I did everything I could to prevent it.

This is when I was attacked with an act of BAD FAITH. I abided by the WARNING I was given by the admin regarding the protesters and made no edits, but in the talk section I questioned the blatant political edits as though the editor was either trying to forcibly include their opinion or devote extensive time and excessive citations regarding content that had absolutely no bearing or relevance whatsoever on the outcome of the race.

The Editor Turini asked me if my comment was directed at them. I assumed they were asking in good faith, because they had good reason for including their citations and knew exactly what each article they were using as a citation said. Instead this editor just wanted to report another warring complaint against me, they did not want to discuss or debate or explain any of these misleading quotes and the complete irrelevance of this political information to the outcome of the race, but rather they were hoping to file another complaint against me to eliminated me as a threat to the political information they were trying to include.

Furthermore this editor then acted in bad faith…. Again, when I made an entirely relevant edit about an incident that happened during stage 14 of the race. They acted in bad faith by complaining to an admin that I had violated the warning I was given even though the protests happened on stage 10 and the edit I made was in regards to an incident THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROTESTS, which happened during stage 14.

As far as the harassing section of this suspension there's nothing to say regarding this at all being as at best, the claim could be made they were harassing me with the uncalled for and weaponized warring accusations. I then made an edit on the talk page of Turini. It was me saying actually what the truth was, although obviously it could be taken as an attack when you're lying about something and don't want anyone to find out you're lying. I just flatly and aggressively stated that I thought they were being knowingly deceitful, intentionally manipulating quotes and in all reality acting in Bad Faith.

Regarding the other bad faith attack from the editor Lugnuts, this is a different situation and came from his deliberate attack and petty personal conduct, especially after seeing that the Wikipedia page in question, the page of rider Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig, was being written just as seriously as any other pro riders page and there was really no excuse for the kind of behavior once they knew the "complaint" they had was not valid. This too had a similar outcome, they personally attacked me, and I went to their talk page and told them I did not care about anything they said or did, which was just a true statement. I also said I would no longer thank them due to the nature of their attack.

The reason I know this was a bad faith attack is because if it was in good faith and this editor truly just cared about the accuracy and proper citations of this page then they would have went and added the rest of the content after the race ended, but they didn't. The rest of the information about that race was left blank, the editor didn't care about the accuracy or content of her page, at all, it is exactly as it was two months ago when I edited it and nobody came along and added where she finished in the race.

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you can't summarize your request in a paragraph or two, you're going to remain blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 25 September 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.

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).

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was acting in Good Faith trying to protect the relevance and integrity of the article, challenging the seemingly persistent inclusion of irrelevant and unnecessary political information and upon closer review it was realized that some of the citations being used to create a debate within the sport regarding whether or not riders supported protesters disrupting the race were misleading and or misquoted. Multiple bad faith warring complaints were filed, most notably when I challenged the political nature of these edits which were wholly irrelevant to the outcome of the race. I was warned not to edit a certain section by an admin and after I was warned did not edit the again, but I was falsely accused of editing this section again, which was a blatant lie and could have easily be seen as false if the person checking would have just read the edits being made it would have been clear and apparent the edit I made had nothing to do with them protests, but rather an incident that took place 4 days later. Following an incident on the talk page where I aggressively brought up the manipulative and misleading usage of certain citations I again had a complaint filed against me, but not because this editor wanted to discuss the citations they included, to defended or justify why they were necessary, but rather just to eliminate an editor who was interfering with the political opinions they wanted to see included, even though they were entirely irrelevant to the outcome of the race and as previous Tour de France race overviews have shown protests happen every year and are rarely included unless it is a significant disruption such as in 2018 when the riders were accidentally MACED by police.

These warring complaints were in bad faith, this editor wanted no part of discussion, did not want to be challenged and only sought to eliminate opposition to the political opinions they wanted to include, and at no time showed any interest in explaining the misleading and misquoted sources used just hoping nobody would notice, or take the time to actually read the article provided in the citation, but I did read the articles.

As far as personal attacks go, yes I personally felt attacked with all of these unnecessary warring complaints that weren't filed for GOOD FAITH reasons, but rather in BAD FAITH to eliminate opposition to the content they were trying to include. The messages left on the talk pages afterwards were the truth, I just said what the truth was, which will be viewed as a personal attack when an editor is hoping no one will read the articles they posted and can just get away with deliberately and intentionally misquoting and misleading readers. This is a complicated incident that cannot be explained in two or three paragraphs, but the difference between good faith and bad faith can be. I was acting in Good faith the entire time, trying to keep the article ABOUT THE RACE without including any politics, the editor who accused me of warring on multiple occasions was acting in BAD FAITH as can be seen by the persistent efforts to include political opinions and by filing complaints as a means of eliminating a threat to the political opinions they were trying to include. Not to mention the fabricated two sided argument they tried to create, where the was no argument at all. The blatant misleading edits to show that some riders supported the protests was patently misleading and false and the only evidence they had to MANUFACTURE AND CREATE this non-existent argument was done by misquoting and misleading, which were the only "sources" available to create this argument and again they weren't actually sources as NONE OF RIDERS supported their race being disrupted, no matter how noble the cause, and everyone who is a part of this sport knows this, but as a result of these Bad faith edits, people who come and read the Wikipedia article will now think there is some sort of debate going on within the sport even though there isn't. At all. And this is the reason I fought against these bad faith edits as I did and it wasn't because I was harassing anyone or making personal attacks and in all reality these multiple warring complaints to eliminate opposition is more of a personal attack than anything I said or did trying to get an explanation about the irrelevant information being included or the misquoted and misleading articles being called sources Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is still far too long to read in detail, and skim-reading suggests that much of this is blaming others - see WP:NOTTHEM. Given you have not heeded the advice given to you three previous times, I'm withdrawing your talk page access to stop you wasting admins' time. See WP:UTRS if you want to make another appeal, but if you waste the time of the volunteers there with another wall of text you will likely have that avenue of appeal removed also. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 25 September 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.

Hello, Raleigh80Z90Faema69. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:George Weinstein, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raleigh80Z90Faema69. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "George Weinstein".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]