User talk:Stiabhna

Welcome!

Hello, HumbleConservative! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 19:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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 19:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if my username is okay for this site? Thanks in advance and have a great day! -HumbleConservative (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I would check through Wikipedia:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames and see if your name matches any of the criteria for what we consider inappropriate. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless it turns out to be the name of an organization, you're good (if so, an acceptable username is something like "Kim from HumbleConservative"). Several WP usernames have "socialist" or "liberal" in them. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice job editing, Keep it up. The Tips of Apmh 15:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -Stiabhna (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Stiabhna! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, My Username, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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 20:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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 COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not do anything to that nature. -Stiabhna (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Two points about your edit to Conservatism in the United States

First, was that in one of the sources? I hope so as it now appears to be. Second, people often misunderstand when to use the minor check box. Use it only when there’s no change to the meaning at all. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! -Stiabhna (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. -Stiabhna (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

My Apologies To Everyone

Although I’ve only been here for roughly a month now, I think I started off on the wrong foot with my contributions and my personal opinions, so I would like to apologize for that. I promise that I will learn how to properly make contributions to Wikipedia, as I am slowly but surely learning. Happy Editing, everyone! -Stiabhna (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Peter Doocy

This deletion runs contrary to your apologies and promises above. You should self-revert. -- Valjean (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He was not being sarcastic. I watched the video. -Stiabhna (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ABC News thinks so, and it's a RS. I'm not sure of your mother tongue, but in English that was an example of obvious sarcasm. You can't "hear" that type. You don't seriously believe that Biden meant what he said about inflation, do you? He certainly doesn't think it's a good thing, so use a little common sense. Regardless, we follow what RS say, and if you persist in this path, you're just going to get blocked as disruptive. You've been notified above, and should consider this another warning. You can now be blocked by any admin without further warning. Deleting properly-sourced content is a serious matter. -- Valjean (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ABC News as a reliable source? Okay. What is an example of a “reliable source?” And my native language is Irish. Biden is causing the inflation right now, but whatever. Thanks. -Stiabhna (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? 😂😂😂 Link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9283061/amp/Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-slams-sites-leftist-bias-claims-neutrality-gone.html Stiabhna (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Sanger's now way out in the weeds, and Daily Mail is so bad we had to officially deprecate it. See its listing at WP:RSP. -- Valjean (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean “way out in the weeds?” Thanks. -Stiabhna (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sanger isn’t lying when he says Wikipedia has gotten so far left on the political spectrum. -Stiabhna (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He has become politically radical, believes conspiracy theories, and (of all things!) misunderstands NPOV. He is now the type of person who complains about "left-wing bias" here, and that is nearly always a red flag for a tendentious editor who quickly gets in trouble and gets blocked. We don't worry about a source's bias. We look for accuracy.

It's really a sad situation about Sanger, who used to be a reasonable person. That's happened to a lot of good people since 2016, and even worse since 2021 as they've gone down the "stolen election" rabbit hole. Any person or source that does not actively push back against that whole nightmare of lies is not a reliable source. -- Valjean (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Aren’t we allowed to have opinions here? -Stiabhna (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, but don't engage in forbidden WP:Advocacy of WP:Fringe opinions as they are contrary to what RS say. That gives you a bad reputation, and that's your most important currency here. You'll end up with a lot more editors scrutinizing your every move. You don't want that. This isn't Facebook. It's a serious workplace. -- Valjean (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

But why don’t you support Sanger’s opinions? Stiabhna (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry for everything. I hope I can get another chance to prove my worthiness. I want to change the direction I’m going here. Stiabhna (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the banner I removed from your userpage will not do it. You cannot have that on your userpage. I will remove it again, and if you reinstate it, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can’t I have it on my user page? Stiabhna (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary, as I have since read Wikipedia’s five pillars for effective editing work and overall outlook when editing here. Although my block will expire in six-ish hours, I have dedicated a lot of time to read and learn Wikipedia’s policies for effective editing. I hope my block can be shortened. If it is, I aim to work on improving articles within the subject of history, particularly American history. Regardless of your decision, thank you for taking the time out to read my plea. Stiabhna (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not convincing. I do not believe the problem was simply that you haven't read Wikipedia's five pillars. You are welcome to make a new unblock request, but you'll need to convince the next reviewing admin that you specifically understand why your edits were inappropriate and explain specifically what you'd do differently if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary, as I have learned my lesson not to disruptive edit my user page with anti-vaxx items, such as the banner that I kept putting up, despite the administrators giving me a fair warning about not doing it. I understand that this was completely wrong and unacceptable. If I am given a reduction to my block, I plan on contributing to Wikipedia in the field of history, particularly American history. Thank you for reading my plea and have a great day. Stiabhna (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as the block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Fringe beliefs

I'm trying to save you so you can end up a good editor. Read what follows with that in mind.

Like I wrote above, you are allowed to believe whatever you want, but openly advocating things that are pushed by unreliable sources and are contrary to what reliable sources say places you right in the middle of a "fringe editor" target. On your user page you have written your political beliefs:

1. Proud anti-vaxxer
2. Proud supporter of current President of the United States Donald Trump
3. The 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol was a coup perpetrated by Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrat Party

You should not be proud that you believe in that trifecta of misinformation. You need to catch up with the facts, so please read the following articles and their sources. :

1. Public health is not a private matter. Your actions can literally kill other people.
   Read: Vaccine hesitancy, Misinformation related to vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States, Measles resurgence in the United States
2. Trump is a former president, so never again call him the "current" president. That will likely get you blocked for forbidden advocacy of fringe beliefs. Trump uses both the "Big Lie" and "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda techniques.
   Read: Big lie# Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Trumpism, Firehose of falsehood
3. There is no evidence that Pelosi or the left-wing had anything to do with that coup attempt. Trump's supporters marched from his meeting at the White House to the Capitol and did what they did. Trump and his friends planned and inspired what happened that day. Even McConnell said it was all Trump's fault.
   Read: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol.

I hope you will bring your beliefs into line with the facts. Facts matter, and it's important to keep your beliefs up-to-date and always follow the evidence:

• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford
• "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell

Our articles are based on reliable sources, so you can generally trust them to be factual. Please believe them. -- Valjean (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi, Valjean. Thank you for giving me another chance to prove my worthiness here. I will definitely take a look at the sources with an open mind. I do want to be a good editor here. For what it is worth now since I am banned for a day or so, I deeply apologize and regret what I did. I will serve my time and I will read the articles in my free time. However, when I have served my time and get back to contributing, I will probably not focus on politics for awhile, as that section will be too tempting for me. I will mainly focus on historical topics, as I have a Bachelor’s degree in that field of study, particularly in the American Civil War. Nonetheless, thank you so much for giving me this last opportunity to prove that I can be a good editor here. I will definitely somehow repay you for your kind gesture after I have served my block. Just let me know what I can do for you in return. Cheers! Stiabhna (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize to bbb23 for putting up with me and for not putting me on an indefinite block. Once I serve my block, I will start doing better with my contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks. -Stiabhna (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 (2)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Michael Luciano. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn’t incorrect information. Look into it yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prancer_(film) Stiabhna (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearly I looked into it myself, as you can see in the edit summary I used when I reverted your edit. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

He made an appearance in Prancer (film), as per the film’s article in the “cast section,” which is why I added the title of the film into Luciano’s selected works. -Stiabhna (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Michael Luciano the film editor had nothing to do with the movie Prancer. There is an actor of the same name who appeared in Prancer. As I said in my edit summary. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Then why was he listed in the cast? Stiabhna (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a different person who has the same name. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay. My apologies. Stiabhna (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 (3)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was I blocked again? Stiabhna (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

After all those apologies and even asking me on my Talk page what was appropriate to add to your userpage, you re-added the same offensive material, and please don't tell me you did it "accidentally" because I won't believe it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I never saw your reply. I was trying to update my user page myself and I accidentally clicked “undo.” I’m not sure of all the tools on here, as I’ve joined two months ago. Will I ever get another chance at contributing again? Stiabhna (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you please WP:INDENT your posts? On January 28 (today) at 01:57 you blanked your userpage. At 23:30 you added the offensive material back to your userpage; you did not click on undo. If you had clicked on undo, it would have taken you back to the edit before the blanking, which was a different version of your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You’re right, I might as well own up to my mistake. Do you see a chance of me ever contributing here again? -Stiabhna (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"mistake"? It wasn't a mistake but intentional, and when confronted with it, you lied. Theoretically, indefinite blocks are not necessarily permanent, but the likelihood of you ever being unblocked is about as slim as it gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s cool. I’ll just make another account and drop more facts into these Wikipedia articles. 😂😂😂 -Stiabhna (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP

2600:1005:B126:D014:20A6:9215:C969:8848 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Based on the comments made by the IP, Stiabhna hasn't learned anything, in spite of all the good advice they have received, and is not here to build an encyclopedia. They still do not understand the difference between sources that lie and fail to fact-check and those that try to tell the facts. An inability to vet sources for accuracy and reliability is a miserable failure to meet one of the most fundamental requirements for an editor. We really do need to make new editors take and pass a short course in how to do that before they can get unfettered access to editing. -- Valjean (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 08:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #81109 is closed.

It looks like your user page was only one problem that you must address.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. This requires greater discussion than is possible via UTRS. Please concisely and clearly describe how your editing merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block today because I have since learned that I should not have disruptively edited Wikipedia and post graphic content on my user page. I was given a warning before first being blocked for 33 hours. After the block had expired, I added the same offensive material, which merited a. Indefinite block. I also incorporated my own political views into my editing, which was also wrong and unethical of me. What I did was wrong and I apologize for what I did. If unblocked, I vow not to edit pages in the field of politics. Moreover, I will focus my editing privileges on pages centered on English literature and non-political history. Perhaps I can be banned from editing political-centered pages either temporarily or indefinitely. I would like to ask for mercy for another chance to contribute positively here. Thank you and happy holidays! Stiabhna (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Agreeing to a topic ban from American politics is likely going to be a part of any unblocking, so that is a start(I also suspect that any topic ban would have to include vaccine-related issues), but you only begin to address the issues here- you do not touch on your socking, nor tell us what contributions you would make. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Hope to hear from someone soon! Thank you! Stiabhna (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block was once necessary starting two years ago, but it isn’t anymore. I would like to appeal my block today because I have since learned that I should not have disruptively edited Wikipedia and posted graphic content on my user page. I was given a warning before first being temporarily blocked for the offensive material. After the block had expired, I added the same offensive material, which merited an indefinite block. I also incorporated my own political views into my editing on Wikipedia, which was unethical of me. I also made a vandalism-only sockpuppet account after being indefinitely blocked to continue my vandalism, which I now regret doing so. This account, User:Stiabhna and my vandalism-only account User:Stormfronter are my only two accounts I have on Wikipedia. If my indefinite block is lifted, I vow that I will not edit Wikipedia pages in the field of American politics and vaccine-related pages. If the topic ban is indefinite, I would certainly understand the reason. Moreover, I have a keen interest in editing American and English literature related articles, as well as theatrical-related articles. I have seen a database on Wikipedia where there is a list of articles that need work on (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_in_need_of_updating_from_December_2023). If unblocked, I would like to work on making the Drama Desk Award for Unique Theatrical Experience better and more concise. More specifically, I would like to add a source where it says that “The category was first presented at the 1975 ceremony.” I already have a source which authenticates the claim. Thank you for reading my plea and I would like to wish the administrator who will be handling my plea a happy holiday season. Stiabhna (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed to MethodistMan,  Highly likely to a WP:LOUTSOCK trolling this summer around Nazis,  Highly likely to banned user, SteKelBry, known for focus on Nazism. Yamla (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

I also wanted to point out that, if unblocked, I will assume good faith to other users of Wikipedia. Stiabhna (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope to hear from someone soon! Stiabhna (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)