User talk:Rantpoet

December 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Linda Ravenswood have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Linda Ravenswood. CLCStudent (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowing Linda Ravenswood to defraud the public with this Wikipedia page. Everything I am saying is true. She shouldn’t be allowed to present a specific image for profit as you prevent the people she has harmed from telling her true story. Harvey Weinstein doesn’t get to remove his rape allegations, nor does Bill Cosby. Rantpoet (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The language you were using in the article was very aggressive, and your claims were unsourced. These are blatant violations of our BLP policy. e^π/💬 04:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if I can prove Linda Ravenswood tried to make me homeless and I cite it, I can post that? Rantpoet (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or we just allowing people to use wikipedia as an advertisement for their fraudulent careers? Rantpoet (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Whatever your personal issues with her are, they have no place on Wikipedia. e^π/💬 04:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They’re are not personal. Just say you are okay with performers masquerading as decent people making people homeless. Coward contributing to the problem. Rantpoet (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make myself a Wikipedia page and cite Linda? As long it’s true mention how she made me homeless Rantpoet (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. Please also refrain from directing personal attacks at me or other editors. I will no longer engage in this conversation. e^π/💬 04:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why can Linda make herself a page to sell her product? What makes her special? Rantpoet (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems discriminatory. Rantpoet (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourselves triggered people. I used a mean word. Pathetic Rantpoet (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etothepi condones making people homeless and preventing them from telling their story Rantpoet (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve recorded documented both of your responses. Wikipedia isn’t the only place people can share. You must be a fan of buttigieg. He’s worthless too Rantpoet (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I intend on suing both of these moderators for violating my civil rights. Rantpoet (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

A discussion regarding your threat to sue people has begun here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat. MarnetteD|Talk 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thread away. Explain to me why Wikipedia is being used as advertisements for people who don’t deserve them Rantpoet (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said someone was a coward and they decided to stop answering me. They reported me over a word Rantpoet (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how free speech works. Some person with too much time on their hands can silence a person suffering half a country away because they didn’t like the word choice? Rantpoet (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll ask again. If I can prove and cite the subject in question intentionally contributed to the homelessness of a human being. And that person is using their Wikipedia page for profit, shouldn’t her victim be able to edit her publicly seen Wikipedia page? Rantpoet (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of good reasons. Like violating my free speech Rantpoet (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me exactly what I have been blocked for. Saying I am going to hold an editor to account for the truth? Rantpoet (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you guys should raise more money. Privately owned companies can be challenged Rantpoet (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People who make legal threats are not allowed to continue to edit - that is why you have been blocked. Your WP:BLP violations and the fact that you seem not here to build an encyclopedia are also reasons for you to be blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn’t care about some people with too much time on their hands silencing me. I do care about the website everyone uses allowing such a selective type of information to be shared. This isn’t a place for some person to posit a positive image for personal gain. Some people are terrible and should be known as such. Rantpoet (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to attack people on this page, your access to edit your talk page will be revoked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Build an encyclopedia for someone to sell themselves for profit and defraud the public at the expense of their truth about who they really are. I have a right to say exactly who people are. It’s not an encyclopedia if it’s a book of lies, half truths, and manipulations. It’s the Bible Rantpoet (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2019 (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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain some things:

A private entity is not Congress and therefore cannot infringe on your free speech rights. If that were the case a private business would be forbidden from ejecting people who are loudly promoting hateful ideology, or a parent would be forbidden from restricting their teenager's behaviour.
As long as you intend to sue Wikipedia or any of its editors, you will be blocked to prevent you exacerbating the situation. Making legal threats also has a habit of affecting free speech, so your claims are hypocritical.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for biographical information about living people. We've already had to deal with this thing before, which is why our biographical policy even exists.
Whether or not a given editor supports XYZ is only relevant if they're in a topic area where this would affect their editing, and this subject does not appear to be part of it. Also, American politics is under discretionary sanctions, which, again, if the First Amendment applied to us, we would not be able to put in place or enforce.
Responding to reasoned discussion with hysterical personal attacks is not only disproportionate, but makes you come across as a crank.
If a subject is "using their Wikipedia page for profit" then they are an idiot. Just ask Burger King with respect to their 2017 Ask Alexa commercial or The North Face about their May 2019 ad campaign from Leo Burnett Tailor Made.

You were blocked for hysterical personal attacks, constantly placing outrageous and unsourced claims about a living person, and threatening legal action against administrators attempting to enforce Wikipedia's policies. As to the article itself, it's been sent to a deletion discussion which looks like it will end with the page's deletion, in part due to your actions getting more eyes on the page and experienced editors realising the page was not up to snuff. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]