User talk:TimPrime1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TimPrime1! 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! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry 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 Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2015

Hello, I'm Reach Out to the Truth. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Korra. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The relationship between Korra and Asami is canon, as intended by the creators. If kids read the article and learn something they weren't aware of, great. Wikipedia is doing its job. Reach Out to the Truth 05:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Boy Meets Boy (TV series)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe it was not very helpful. Specifically, the term "gay" has been in use in most reliable sources for a while, while "homosexual" is seen as having pejorative connotations. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Korra, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at George Takei, you may be blocked from editing. Pjefts (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alerts

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 any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 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.

--Jorm (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this your re-up for your awareness of the abovementioned discretionary sanction areas EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kari Lake, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this simple and clear - any more edits such as you've made in American politics and gender and you will be blocked.

Doug Weller talk 10:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you've never responded here, I'm wondering if you've even found this page, so I'm blocking you until you respond. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten your messages, but blocking indefinitely is a wrong course of action. Where I'm at is night time when you messaged me. Not only that, but I couldn't figure out how to reply by via phone. I made the edits because of she stated about the 2022 elections, in which I agree with her. I removed it because it is true that he won the 2020 election, but it was taken from him by the radical left. So her false claims are 100% true that he did win. I know the truth, but it does seem as if Wikipedia goes with the lies of the political area. TimPrime1 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reality says otherwise, including a number of Republicans who clearly are not left wing. And one of the oldest US conservative journals, the National Review[https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/telling-the-truth-about-the-2020-election/]. So my statement above holds. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are fake Republicans out there that are for the 2020 results who hate Trump for no reason. Also, I don't listen to any information that falsely claims that the 2020 election wasn't stolen. It's all fake news and people who say otherwise don't know the truth from the lie anymore. Trump won as Biden cheated. I even saw and watched the election get stolen with what was posted online. Two examples: 1. Pulling ballots form underneath the tables as they lied about a pipe burst. 2. Placing boards over the windows to prevent to voters from watching them counting ballots in PA. TimPrime1 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a complete lack of reliable sources to back up your flights of fancy. Since you believe in conspiracy theories that have no evidence to support them, it's good that you are banned from editing post-1992 U.S. politics articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only because all the evidence has been either removed or disputed. I do request that I be un-banned from not being able to make any edits. I'm no conspiracy theorist as I look at the truth. By banning me because I made a little edit is going overboard. I never make an edit unless I know it's true. So please heed my request. Unban me from making changes in the political area, because I cannot lie and don't ever plan on lying. If I'm not unbanned, I'll make a dispute about this. TimPrime1 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient it must be that all the sources that disagree with you are fake news and what you think is the "real" news is just suppressed. If you want to appeal Doug's decision, go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and post your request there. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from editing anything related to post 1992 politics of the United States and closely related people., broadly interpreted.

You have been sanctioned due to your comments above which show your inability to edit in this field.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request this be lifted as what I edited was only a small edit. Not only that, but I feel as if this is a ridiculous ban as I only edited it once and not multiple times. Even if I can't prove what I stated months ago, me and millions of Americans believe of the rigged election, and we all can admit that wikipedia isn't accurate 100% every single time. TimPrime1 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this includes talk pages, etc. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for three months from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Your topic ban is crystal clear. You violated it at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is unjustified as I only requested for others to edit the political areas related to the 2020 election and the so-called attacks on the Capital, not for myself to do so. I don't know why you decided to block me from editing all of wikipedia. I honestly don't know how to find the appeal page for this site to get my block appealed. TimPrime1 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 year Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

EvergreenFir (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Your topic ban remains in effect and your first edit since your previous block was a direct violation of it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some reconsideration and re-reading your edit summary, it's clear that you are WP:NOTHERE. I've changed your block to an indefinite period. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving a very strict warning! Either lift this block or I will make a video about this, report you and multiple other radical-left woke people and possibly sue wikipedia for what they're doing. I made an edit stating the truth about George Floyd's death. What you have just done is completely unjustified. If I'm to get this appealed, then I'll report you for doing this. What you've done is against the rules. Especially since I was making a truthful edit and even gave a link as proof. This could be your only warning from me. Stop with this woke narrative and remove the block as I've made strong statements. TimPrime1 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be much nicer and place out a firm appeal 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).

TimPrime1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel like this is unjustified as I had shown a website link as to why I changed George Floyd's actual death over the false record. Plus, I don't really know the tea-house rules - if I'm saying the name correctly. I'd like for both the one year and indefinite ban be removed so I can resume editing on other pages of wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Your legal threats have made things considerably worse for you. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:47, 27 May 2024 (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.

TimPrime1 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2024 (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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.