User talk:Optional Syntax

Welcome!

Hello, ChromeWebStore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, ChromeWebStore, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

ChromeSafari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

No. Please pick a different username, one that does not imply you are an official source of Chrome or Safari or any other browser. One that adheres to WP:USERNAME. Yamla (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Optional Syntax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Renamed and unblocked. Happy editing! Yamla (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prager

OS, in looking at your comments I have two comments/suggestions. First, be sure to sign your comments with 4 "~"s There is a quick link at the bottom of the edit window. Second, I understand the idea of linking to the videos. Personally I see nothing wrong with it as the MJ article that makes the accusations does exactly that. I don't agree with the claim that some make that we can't do it because the views are "fringe". However, I'm also not sure that is a winnable fight in context of consensus. Instead you might think about some of the comments that came out of the RSN discussion. Several editors noted that we have one highly partisan source offering an opinion on another and we don't have multiple sources saying the same thing. Thus this could be seen as a DUE issue. Even if MJ is somewhat reliable for the specific claims, absent others making the same claims this is placing UNDUE weight on the opinion of one source on a few videos. It would be better to try to rework the section to offer a summary of several sources and what the feel about the videos in general. This sort of selective quoting or more specifically quoting the most extreme statements made by lower quality (but not unreliable) sources is a common problem with Wikipedia articles. That said, if you go for the blunt head on approach to the problem you will likely face pushback that prevents a new consensus. This is why I like Mansem's views on things. I think they are able to often see an alternative path that addresses the problem without upsetting those who don't like the blunt "solution". Springee (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for your support on Sam Hyde's page. I'm not championing anyone, but that leading section was just completely unacceptable for an encyclopaedia to have, especially for quite high traffic articles. My reasoning went unheeded. Apparently encyclopaedias are supposed to have an agenda now and make authoritative statements, rather than letting a reader draw their own conclusions from neutral facts. Nate, AKA MrSchimpf on the copy protection req page - and I quote, "I'm tired of seeing whitewashing of tenuous figures". Blew his own cover right within the protection req page. The unsourced 'holocaust denier' tag was truly outrageous. Without sounding melodramatic it's actually terrifying to me that people are attempting to use Wikipedia as a mouthpiece to push a narrative whether it's true or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to make authoritative statements. Anyway, sorry for the tl:dr. Just thought I'd share my feelings. Zedd1997 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]