User talk:I664k

August 2022[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Uwu are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah forgot about that I664k (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you literally use sources from commercially-controlled media whilst rejecting any criticism of any commercially-controlled source and denounce the critic as a 'conspiracy theorist' whilst making an ad hominem argument that invalidates your point of view I664k (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plus you're too scaredy to even reply because your arguments are literally nothing anyways because you use the press as your 'reliability' even thought there has been countless times were the press is basically manipulated by the government to write anything the government wants for them to write I664k (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK--if you want to start talking about government-controlled media etc. in the context of the Gospel of Mark, you can continue that on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i dont even have twitter lol I664k (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alright buddy chum pal of the second floor of epstein's temple if you really think commercially-controlled media is a reliable source then I think otherwise because they're legally allowed to lie anyways I664k (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alright buddy chum pal of the second floor of epstein's temple if you really think commercially-controlled media is a reliable source then I think otherwise because they're legally allowed to lie anyways I664k (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can think what you like, but on Wikipedia we follow Wikipedia policy and that means reliable sources, and that also means there is no room to argue against mainstream scholarship or to suggest the government is secretly microwaving people's brains. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey but your notability criteria is pretty much dumb as hell considering that the perpetrator of the 2016 berlin attack was given a page but it has been directed to the berlin attack, and this was upgraded to a full page, but this has since been reverted because "muh it was not notable enough" even though the 2016 berlin attack has BEEN talked about and yet this just shows how your notability process is technically dogwater I664k (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2023 (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).

I664k (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just criticized the notability process, and how is it personal attacks again?I664k (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you don't seem to see how you made personal attacks, there are no grounds to remove the block. If anything, that is an argument to extend it. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2023 (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 and this are clear personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are those personal attacks??? - i664k

If you don't know then WP:CIR is an issue. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just saying though, just how are those "personal attacks"? I664k (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If you don’t know, it’s hard to believe you won’t continue making them. It’s also clear you have a major disagreement with our policy on reliable sources. User:Drmies, what do you think? Doug Weller talk 19:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block was appropriate. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening another editor with violence was unacceptable. You, somehow, got a week instead of an immediate indefinite. Then you played dumb about why that was problematic. So, just, no. And no more talk page access, either, for you to continue wasting our time. Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]