User talk:VegitotheKnightmare

January 2024

Hello, I'm Achmad Rachmani. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Center for Inquiry have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Adding asterisks causes references to show error messages. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Achmad, I hope you're well. I kindly request you to restore my contributions and for you to re-evaluate my edits. There was no vandalism, I was simply making various tweaks which resulted in many edits during a short time. If you check my edits on the page, you will see that all of the added claims were factual and supported by sources. Additionally, I enhanced many sentences from the original article. According to Wikipedia, "Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way." My edits were neither humorous, nonsensical, hoaxes, et cetera. I was simply painting a neutral picture of the organization.

I apologize for making many edits in such a short time. I was not aware of the sandbox feature and will use it in the future.

Thank you, have a nice day.

- VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VegitotheKnightmare (also pinging Achmad Rachmani). I see that you have reinstated those edits, and I have reverted them. Wikipedia uses a process knows as "WP:BRD" (for BOLD, revert, discuss) in situations like this. You took the first step by BOLDly making your changes. Another editor reverted it, which is the second step. Rather than continuing to make controversial changes to the article, the thing to do next is to take the matter to the Talk page of the article, so editors can agree on how to handle it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gronk, hope you're well.

I believe that your statement is incorrect. WP:BRD is optional.

"The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach."

May I know why the changes are controversial, and why you deleted the edits if this process is not mandatory?

Thank you. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that Sgerbic (an employee of Center for Inquiry) is one of the people prominently present in the talk page VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VegitotheKnightmare - I see that you have started a topic on the article's Talk page, and that is the appropriate place for the discussion so all interested editors can take part, and I won't duplicate it here. I don't follow why you mention that Sgerbic (who you chose not to notify) commented on the Talk page: if you think that is relevant to this discussion then please feel free to indicate how on the Talk page.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gronk, hope you're doing great

It seems you're not interested in discussion as you haven't replied to the talk page topic.

In that case, why did you revert my edits and ask for me to take it to the talk page? How did you know others weren't happy with my edits if at all?

Hope to hear back soon VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rosa Parks. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.BlueWren0123 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can you please elaborate with specific details on how the edits are "disruptive?" This will help me moving forward. I really don't think I did anything wrong.

Thank you. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueWren0123

Please don't reply here, I think it would be more appropriate to discuss in each page's Talk.

Thanks! VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]