User talk:DFreeds

August 2024

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. 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 Ilhan Omar 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like me to put the source for this comment then show me how. You don’t have a right to remove a comment you don’t like. As you mentioned, it’s not right for YOU to decide what is and isn’t neutral. Please put this back or I will report you for a breach of the first amendment. DFreeds (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is back up. It has been modified. It is perfectly written. If you want me to do the work for you to provide sources please ask. If you remove it you will be reported as biased and breaching first amendment rights. Let me be clear, you are in the wrong here. DFreeds (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least you didn't violate WP:BLP with the second edit, though it is still unacceptable. If you want to find out why, I recommend you read through some of the links on this page, or ask us specific questions for more clarity. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is it “unacceptable”

if you want me to provide a reference for you to insert then say that

if you continue to remove this I need someone from Wikipedia to contact me as you don’t have the authority acting on their behalf DFreeds (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Ilhan Omar. Thank you. Wiiformii (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not poorly referenced. If you want references then tell me and I’ll send you.

remvoing this is a breach of the law which supercedes your petty little community of mommy’s basement self important “editors” DFreeds (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FREE, there is no law about anything you mentioned. Wiiformii (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to explain how constitutional law works to you.

the point remains that my edit is factual

You don’t have authority to be judge, jury and “executioner”

if you continue to do so I will gladly report you; try me… DFreeds (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step out to make dinner, miss all the excitement .... --JBL (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

In particular, please note that, because you are not sufficiently experienced at editing Wikipedia (you have not achieved 500 edits), you are not eligible to make any edits to Wikipedia concerning the war in Gaza or other aspects of the Israel--Palestine conflict. Thanks, JBL (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great point that I had forgotten about. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in perusing the following essays, guidelines, and policies:

They will be useful as you develop greater experience editing Wikipedia (necessarily, in other subject areas than your most recent edits). --JBL (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So because I haven’t done an arbitrary number of edits yet have provided ample context and reference to the edit I have made you will restrict my right to edit the page? Is this your direction? This is a breach of the first amendment as this is a public forum so long as what you have posted is with merit and can be validated to be true.

please advise and / or place my edit back to its rightful place DFreeds (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:FREESPEECH. The First Amendment protects your free speech from the government, not from privately owned websites. You can read about the restrictions placed on Israel-Palestine articles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public site. It isn’t privately held. They are not for profit and ask for donations frequently.

again, you’re not in the right here this is well documented as something she has done if you don’t like the edit then go ahead and edit it so it’s acceptable; removing it isn’t acceptable DFreeds (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read WP:FREESPEECH. Wikipedia is not a publicly owned site. It's too bad that you proved unable to be respectful. I was only going to block you from Omar's page, but you earned the full block. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block indefinitely and revoked your talk page access. We don't tolerate that garbage here. --Yamla (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.