User talk:RichmanHopson

Hello

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Would you mind letting me know where you heard about the discussion surrounding Male expendability? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the welcome Generalrelative. I actually heard about the discussion on the article from your post on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I noticed we have differing opinions on the issue but may whatever's best win out RichmanHopson (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for your response. Generalrelative (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I noticed that the discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard seems inclined to ignore the opinions of the less established editors. While I'm aware these discussions do not function as a vote. I ask those who agree with me are not entirely disregarded.RichmanHopson (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and was sometimes frustrated by that when I was new. However the reason for this tendency is that Wikipedia is a rather unique place: lots of highly motivated, mostly intelligent people with opinions crashing up against lots of well thought out policies and guidelines. Those highly motivated people with opinions will often get into trouble if they wade too quickly into controversial topic areas (which means anything on FRINGE by definition) without first gaining lots of practical experience learning the ins and outs of how we do things and why. The learning curve is just a natural part of the process, and everyone who has been around for a bit has been through it in one way or another. This is summed up nicely in the short essay User:Valereee/Having a clue. That said, Wikipedia is one of the places in the word where you're most likely to have an impact simply by having done good research and explaining that research clearly. Good reasoning and good sources will eventually prevail in almost every instance here. Wishing you all the best, Generalrelative (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard discretionary sanctions alerts for the areas of abortion and gender

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why was I even blocked I'm confused RichmanHopson (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:19, 28 January 2022 (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.

Shouldn't I be able to see the evidence against me. RichmanHopson (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop socking. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]