User talk:Tyrolian859
Welcome to my home!
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Tyrolian859, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Street style did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction tutorial
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]
|
Protests vs riots[edit]
The idea that only right-wing white people protest (no matter what amount of violence is involved) but black people and others opposed to racism are rioters (no matter how large a majority is peaceful) is white supremacist and fascist hypocrisy. You need better personal news sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- What kind of explanation is this? What kind of mental gymnastics? No one said anything about the race of people involved - Minneapolis burned down. Stores were looted. It occurred in multiple cities. These "protests" have a body count. To say it is anything but a riot is a laughable lie and a leftist delusion contradicted by endless, plentiful, apocalyptic video evidence of stores being looted, buildings being burned, dead bodies laying in the streets, and girls screaming to cameras that "protestors shot her sister". What you mean by "you need better personal news sources" is "ones that I agree with, as a leftist". You're trying to shirk responsibility, as a leftist, for riots and violence. Stop throwing around the "white supremacist/fascist" ad-hominem. Black people rioted. White people rioted. People were condemning rioting. How on earth am I supposed to respond to this? This is an utter deflection. Tyrolian859 (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020[edit]
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to History of the United States. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rio Grande Valley. Block evasion by Grafton56. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Tyrolian859 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not engaged in block evasion, nor sockpuppetry, and that accusation is being used as an excuse to silence me because I'm making edits a certain editor doesn't like. Judging from Binksternet's user history, he frequently impugns that anyone who makes an edit to a page that he disagrees with is a "sockpuppet". I am not a sockpuppet, of any of the accounts that were named, and the excuses used for banning me are that I reinstated edits I found in the page history of a select few pages that I agreed with?! Because they came from those accounts? No, I'm sorry, that's utter nonsense, and it is certainly not to be used as an excuse for such behavior as reverting every edit I make after multiple weeks of being a member, and then blocking me in the space of 40 minutes for alleged, unverified "sockpuppetry". It seems to be one of Binksternet's excuses when he wants to ban a user who is making additions that conflict with his personal biases. The person who levied my block, in question, prized an un-sourced addition that was not agreed upon on the talk page of Heavy Metal music, an altercation that instigated this ridiculous block in particular, and he deleted any attempt I made to talk to him about the altercations we were having on his talk page. He deliberately shut down any mode of communication and refused to talk. And yet I'm blocked? That does not make sense. I would like my block removed, please, and I would like the chance to complain about administrator abuse by some on Wikipedia. Thank you. Tyrolian859 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed to several other Dcasey98 socks, including Devildriver686 and Velvetlaptop. Appeal on your original account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2020 (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.
- 1) You're clearly abusing your moderator privileges. Not acceptable. 2) I made those edits because I had perused both pages, found the information lacking or not satisfactory, checked the page history, agreed with those particular edits made, and reinstated them. I didn't check to see if they were both by the same user. The fact that they were is not enough to conclusively link me with accounts that I have never owned. Period. I just happen to agree with that person. And certain moderators seem to have a long history of making these accusations left right and center if they happen to not agree with edits being made. Which is unacceptable. Tyrolian859 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pointing out you act like, sound like, and congregate with Dcasey98 sockpuppets is not abuse. Aside from the pairings of above where your behavior completely matched that of your previous socks, your edits at Talk:Heavy_metal_music#Heavy_Metal_Country_of_Origin are pretty much you continuing your old attempts talk page discussion. Also, I have never edited Heavy metal music nor its talk page (and have no opinion on it), and Binksternet did not levy a block on you (because he's not an admin). When he pointed out similarities between your edits and another sockpuppeteer, that prompted me to go check (because you were already came up on my suspicion radar for your earlier unprovoked behavior). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- So the only argument for my block is that "I sound like other users" because I agreed with, and reinstated, the past edits of a certain user's? That is utter nonsense. And now you're bringing a THIRD account into this - which, looking at it, has been inactive for well over two years! That sounds to me like you people use accusations of sockpuppetry as an excuse to ban people who make edits you don't like. And looking at Binksternet's page, I think that suspicion is all but confirmed - and if that weren't enough, as I said, he refused to engage in discussion on his talk page. That's a problem. That should not be allowed. Tyrolian859 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- The two accounts mentioned in your block log are confirmed sockpuppets of Dcasey98. But you already know that. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- This will go absolutely nowhere if all you do is impugn and insist. I don't know what to tell you, other than that I am not a sockpuppet and I am not aware of any of those accounts - I first started dabbling in Wikipedia just this month. The account you linked me to hasn't had any activity in nearly three years, while the two other accounts you said were sockpuppets of the aforementioned account, were active for mere weeks. You've done nothing but attempt to tie me to two "sockpuppet accounts", just because I reverted to edits that they made. Because I agreed with them. No, I'm sorry, that is not a satisfactory reason to block, certainly not in the manner you and Binksternet did. It has the air of a ready excuse to silence. I'll wait for the response to my repeal request. Tyrolian859 (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nevermind, missed the CU while I was typing that. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- This will go absolutely nowhere if all you do is impugn and insist. I don't know what to tell you, other than that I am not a sockpuppet and I am not aware of any of those accounts - I first started dabbling in Wikipedia just this month. The account you linked me to hasn't had any activity in nearly three years, while the two other accounts you said were sockpuppets of the aforementioned account, were active for mere weeks. You've done nothing but attempt to tie me to two "sockpuppet accounts", just because I reverted to edits that they made. Because I agreed with them. No, I'm sorry, that is not a satisfactory reason to block, certainly not in the manner you and Binksternet did. It has the air of a ready excuse to silence. I'll wait for the response to my repeal request. Tyrolian859 (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- The two accounts mentioned in your block log are confirmed sockpuppets of Dcasey98. But you already know that. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- So the only argument for my block is that "I sound like other users" because I agreed with, and reinstated, the past edits of a certain user's? That is utter nonsense. And now you're bringing a THIRD account into this - which, looking at it, has been inactive for well over two years! That sounds to me like you people use accusations of sockpuppetry as an excuse to ban people who make edits you don't like. And looking at Binksternet's page, I think that suspicion is all but confirmed - and if that weren't enough, as I said, he refused to engage in discussion on his talk page. That's a problem. That should not be allowed. Tyrolian859 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pointing out you act like, sound like, and congregate with Dcasey98 sockpuppets is not abuse. Aside from the pairings of above where your behavior completely matched that of your previous socks, your edits at Talk:Heavy_metal_music#Heavy_Metal_Country_of_Origin are pretty much you continuing your old attempts talk page discussion. Also, I have never edited Heavy metal music nor its talk page (and have no opinion on it), and Binksternet did not levy a block on you (because he's not an admin). When he pointed out similarities between your edits and another sockpuppeteer, that prompted me to go check (because you were already came up on my suspicion radar for your earlier unprovoked behavior). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1) You're clearly abusing your moderator privileges. Not acceptable. 2) I made those edits because I had perused both pages, found the information lacking or not satisfactory, checked the page history, agreed with those particular edits made, and reinstated them. I didn't check to see if they were both by the same user. The fact that they were is not enough to conclusively link me with accounts that I have never owned. Period. I just happen to agree with that person. And certain moderators seem to have a long history of making these accusations left right and center if they happen to not agree with edits being made. Which is unacceptable. Tyrolian859 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)