User talk:173.15.73.108

January 2017

Hello, I'm Jusdafax. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Constitution Party (United States)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jusdafax 00:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Joji (musician). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please give a good reason next time you remove content from an infobox. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Whether you give money to the Foundation or not is up to you, but it does not affect Wikipedia content one way or another. If Wikipedia were swayed by people with political agendas giving or refusing to give money, nothing would appear here. Everyone is offended by something on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

There are no other places identified to discuss clear bias, the posts made were all in good faith, none of them were "disruptive" unless your goal is to sink any viability of unbiased position as a group. To me, you're proving the point that this is now a useless entity of propaganda, and should be treated as such in all discussions

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There are no other places identified to discuss clear bias, the posts made were all in good faith, none of them were "disruptive" unless your goal is to sink any viability of unbiased position as a group. To me, you're proving the point that this is now a useless entity of propaganda, and should be treated as such in all discussions |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=There are no other places identified to discuss clear bias, the posts made were all in good faith, none of them were "disruptive" unless your goal is to sink any viability of unbiased position as a group. To me, you're proving the point that this is now a useless entity of propaganda, and should be treated as such in all discussions |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=There are no other places identified to discuss clear bias, the posts made were all in good faith, none of them were "disruptive" unless your goal is to sink any viability of unbiased position as a group. To me, you're proving the point that this is now a useless entity of propaganda, and should be treated as such in all discussions |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Open Bias

Editorial on Wikipedia Editorial Positions, Case of Joji vs Mark Dice

Let me preface by stating I was a regular donor, and editor, from various addresses more recently, for about a decade and a half. That is ending without some serious change. Per the multiple stories about Joji_(musician) being involved in suggesting suicide to children, I think we've found a glaring example of hypocrisy by the Wikipedia "Community" or at least utter derangement by some of the editors. You can find a news story verifying this man's involvement. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youtube-kids-inappropriate-horrified-mom-discovers-suicide-instructions-in-video-on-youtube-and-youtube-kids/ What brings me to my conclusion that I can no longer support this "project" or anything this "project" produces, is not this man's apparent insanity. It's the obvious discontinuity between the treatment of his page, and the absolute Censorship of a political commentator who does half-assed "man on the street" interviews with idiots, but who holds political views in opposition to some people in San Francisco and the rest of a bunch of socialists. Your editors, knowing they have these pages, knowing they could work in equity, have removed Mr. Dice's history, restricted his current events, and the Youtube numbers which exceed most of the "mainstream stars," and have decided that a man who subverted YoutubeKids to suggest that children kill themselves should continue being promoted in this way. It's clear bias. Your editors have lost their handles, or they're exposing the intents you had from the outset. And you're utterly horrible as an entity, to me, as long as this bias continues. Solve it, remove all of these numbers, or let anyone have it. And stop censoring people's profiles from regular updates based on the biases of the editors. And no, I don't know where else to put this, apparently the idea that circles of editors are being openly biased is not worthy of anyone knowing about it. 173.15.73.108 (talk)