User talk:ExpertPrime

Edit warring at Michael Avenatti[edit]

Your recent editing history at Michael Avenatti shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a super common mistake that a lot of editors make. The issue in question is actually a huge mistake by the other editor and not myself. I forgive you for making this embarrassing mistake and wish you well. ExpertPrime (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Andre🚐 21:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:CITIZEN with regards to nationalities and citizenships in lede[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (History of the chair) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are also greatly misusing WP:NONAZIS. If you believe that the information is in error, please discuss it on the talk page, without making accusations about other users. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to discuss on the talk page. Have you seen the amount of racism present there? There is a massive off-wiki attack by white supremacists. ExpertPrime (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serious accusations require serious evidence, enough to override WP:AGF. If you have hard evidence(not just disagreement with your edits) of white supremacy, bring it to WP:ANI(but be aware your own actions will be examined as well). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the talk page for this article? Have you even bothered to look at the racism present? ExpertPrime (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not justify edit warring. You still have access to the talk page and the rest of the encyclopedia. As I've said, if you have evidence of racism or white supremacy, bring it to ANI(if off-wiki you may need to avoid WP:OUTING). You may also appeal this brief block. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll appeal nothing. If blatant racism and white supremacy is what this project wants to promote, I'll gladly have no part in it. ExpertPrime (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is not tolerated here, if you have evidence of it. Disagreeing with your edits is not racism. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are racist comments by IP users, but that has nothing to do with your edits and edit warring, 331dot (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the racist comments and blocked one IP range(I can suppress them too but I'm short on time right now); thank you for pointing that out- but again, that is not relevant to your edit warring. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2A0E:CB01:10:1A00:146C:3E24:4E5C:2A09 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next block will be indefinite. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We had consensus on the topic and I only reverted vandalism. Also didn't break 3rr. But go off, fam. ExpertPrime (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not limited to 3RR, review WP:EW. Please show where you obtained a consensus for your edit. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator had reverted the vandalism back to my edit. I had presumed that consensus was reached and was following the lead of that admin. This feels heavy handed. ExpertPrime (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That admin admitted that they were in error to do so. Even if not, an admin performing an edit does not in and of itself mean there is a consensus for it- you need to show the consensus exists for a disputed edit you wish to make. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also under the assumption that Wikipedia stood against racism. I'm being reminded that it does not. ExpertPrime (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how you are taking that away from this issue. The only reason you are blocked is edit warring. Edit warring is not an acceptable means of resolving a dispute. That's all this is about. Can you please explain what about this makes you think Wikipedia is in favor of racism? 331dot (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What defamatory information did I add? I didn't even edit the article. ExpertPrime (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Absolutely no indication of breaking any rules. No warning, no reason. Completely out of the blue. ExpertPrime (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Users with more than one long-term block are not in any position to complain about a lack of warning (not that there aren't several above anyway). And generally you seem still (as evinced below) a battleground mentality (hint: It's not a good look to call a standard warning "vandalism", when you remove it]) and inability to assume good faith. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 10 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.

ExpertPrime (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was previously temp blocked for edit warring, which I did. I was under the assumption that reverting racist vandalism was not considered edit warring, but I guess I was wrong. But my permanent block was not for edit warring. It appears that I was blocked for antizionism. Saying that I was blocked temporarily in the past for other things, then weeks/months later being blocked out of the blue and saying it's for the same stuff as before seems dishonest. ExpertPrime (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

It appears that I have been blocked for antizionism. I wish that this could have been resolved normally, but it appears that the admins at Wikipedia prefer to silence marginalized voices. I'm sorry. ExpertPrime (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you were blocked for edit warring; the real problem is not you editing a page, but you editing a page without sources and been biased. we can understand you don't like some part of the history, but it's never right been negationist.

also, as I remember in WP:NONAZIS, been antisemitic is a big no 181.43.197.47 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never once have I engaged in "antisemitism". Aren't there rules against accusations like this? ExpertPrime (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I want to understand what actions I took to get blocked, specifically. Primarily so I can make sure not to do them again. I edit warred in the past and, when told not to, decided to completely step away from the page in question. I realize that requesting an unblock requires that I recognize what I did wrong, and I sincerely want to do that. Could we please assume good faith and help me fix this, as opposed to the snarky non-replies I've gotten this far?

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I want to understand what actions I took to get blocked, specifically. Primarily so I can make sure not to do them again. I edit warred in the past and, when told not to, decided to completely step away from the page in question. I realize that requesting an unblock requires that I recognize what I did wrong, and I sincerely want to do that. Could we please assume good faith and help me fix this, as opposed to the snarky non-replies I've gotten this far? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I want to understand what actions I took to get blocked, specifically. Primarily so I can make sure not to do them again. I edit warred in the past and, when told not to, decided to completely step away from the page in question. I realize that requesting an unblock requires that I recognize what I did wrong, and I sincerely want to do that. Could we please assume good faith and help me fix this, as opposed to the snarky non-replies I've gotten this far? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I want to understand what actions I took to get blocked, specifically. Primarily so I can make sure not to do them again. I edit warred in the past and, when told not to, decided to completely step away from the page in question. I realize that requesting an unblock requires that I recognize what I did wrong, and I sincerely want to do that. Could we please assume good faith and help me fix this, as opposed to the snarky non-replies I've gotten this far? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

ExpertPrime (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]