User talk:CrocoDIilios

May 2022

Hello, I'm Pulpfiction621. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Multiverse have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

However, what I said about the multiverse is true, this is what Scientific American has to say:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/multiverse-theories-are-bad-for-science/ CrocoDIilios (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Lord Belbury. Your recent edit(s) to the page An Inconvenient Truth appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The lead of an article should summarise its contents. If you think the article is missing an angle on failed environmental predictions leading to controversy in schools, add some detail with clear sources rather than just mentioning it unsourced in the lead. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of the predictions in the movie didn't come true:

here's a source: https://www.britannica.com/story/an-inconvenient-truth-10-years-hence

but don't worry I believe in climate change and support environmental protection. CrocoDIilios (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That's great, but please read what I said above. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I read my fellow wikipedian CrocoDIilios (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

edited: I read what you said my fellow wikipedian CrocoDIilios (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Common Core. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

But common core is very, very controversial, this is a fact, I am not trying to insert my opinion but to state a fact. Lots of people dislike the standards. CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I already cited a source. This is my first source cited. CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to review WP:DUE, and WP:LEAD. The lead is the summary of the article below. Going around and changing leads to suit your personal beliefs is not how things are done. Bishonen explained this to you below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but I didn't say they were bad standards, I just said they were controversial.

Controversy means according to the dictionary: disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

But anyways thank you for reminding me of this, I am a new Wikipedian after all. My desire is to remove biases from Wikipedia pages, even if I agree with those biases. CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Richard Carrier. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but he is a major proponent of Jesus myth theory which is a conspiracy theory. CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Macroevolution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

But it's true. CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Warning

You've made quite a number of unsourced and opinionated edits to various articles today, and have continued doing so, for example here, after responding to Lord Belbury's comment above. Please note that Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Don't add anything to lead sections unless it's supported and sourced lower down in the article; and don't add anything lower down unless you provide a reliable source for it, or you will end up blocked. (Mentioning a source here on your own page when you're challenged is not enough. Sources go in the article.) Bishonen | tålk 17:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC).

May 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here CrocoDIilios (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC) I am just a new user, who just edits to be able to edit semi protected pages. I want to be given a second chance. I tried my best do be as respectful as I can, can please be unbanned}}

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am a new user trying to learn what I can about editing Wikipedia, I just wanted to edit what I saw as biased or incorrect, I promise I will try not to disrupt. Those edits weren't even disruptive. I don't want to be your enemy so please unblock me

Decline reason:

Since you don't think that your edits were disruptive, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I promise not to break the rules anymore, I just want to be unblocked. I don't think it was fair for I - a new user - to be blocked permanently. I'm just a noobie trying to make edit

Decline reason:

From your comments below, you either have refused to engage adequately with an admin willing to unblock you for a fairly limited restriction, or you are unable to grasp their request and offer. Either is a bigger problem than just your original cause for blocks, so I am declining Nosebagbear (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

• CrocoDIilios, I saw that you did provide a source after being told it was essential, which I thought a good sign that you are trying to adjust to our norms. But it remains a really bad idea to roam the wiki and edit stuff that catches your eye in lead sections. Did you get what Lord Belbury told you about leads being summaries of their articles? They should never be edited before the body of the article (though admittedly more experienced editors than you sometimes make the same mistake). If it's all right with Bbb23, I will unblock you on the strict condition that you don't edit any lead sections whatever for the next month. Time to move down in the articles, and to provide sources there. Also, it's time you used article talkpages. Bishonen | tålk 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC).

Yes I read what lord Belbury said.

Right... well, that was more a rhetorical question. What I want from you is a response to my offer of converting the block to an undertaking from you to stay away from lead sections for the next month. If you agree to do that, and if Bbb23 accepts it, I will unblock you. That probably can't happen before tomorrow, as it's late in my timezone, and I'm about to go to bed. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC).

well goodnight my friend, have the best sleep possible. CrocoDIilios (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't answer as to whether you accept my offer or not. But if you don't care about being unblocked, that's up to you. Bishonen | tålk 06:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

I care about being unblocked CrocoDIilios (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: Although it's largely a moot point, I would have opposed unblocking CD because, even with the restriction you wished them to agree to, I don't think their purpose for being here or their actions fulfilling that purpose is conducive to editing constructively. Their userpage says that they want "to remove bias on Wikipedia". Putting aside the impossibility of such a goal, it is not a desirable mindset in a new editor. After I blocked them, they said they were a new editor "who just edits to be able to edit semi protected pages". I assume that means that they edited as an IP and created an account to get autoconfirmed. In and of itself, that is not terrible, but it's an indication to me that they want to edit pages that have sufficient disruption/controversy requiring protection, which is also not the best objective for a new editor. Additionally, almost every edit they made in the short time they've been here has been reverted for one reason or another. Finally, even after your comment above about them not caring about being unblocked, they were unable to give you a direct answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, their replies to me have been getting increasingly trollish. Your instinct was right. Bishonen | tålk 13:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

  I was not trying to be trollish. I legitimately want to be unbanned. CrocoDIilios (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Can you give me a completely clear definition of what "constructive editing" is so that you can unban me? CrocoDIilios (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not trying to remove all bias. I did not say "all bias" just "bias" and removing the bias of a single page is not impossible. CrocoDIilios (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)