User talk:65.175.199.251

What citation is there for calling focused protection fringe?

Hi 65.175.199.251! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Great Barrington Declaration several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article

Please stop

Your recent editing history at Great Barrington Declaration 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:65.175.199.251 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: ). Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:65.175.199.251 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: ). Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Oz\^InterAct 08:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I suggest you read

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Great Barrington Declaration. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 65.175.199.251. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Great Barrington Declaration) for a period of 6 months for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been expanded to include the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Three other users have given up on editing the article to stop it's bias spread of disinformation. SmolBrane clearly gave up discouraged and the user associated with IP 171.66.12.122 gave up on calling out the article's bias. And user Costatitanica just flat out said: "I share the disgust expressed by others at this blatantly biased nature of this screed of an article. I don't have patience to get into edit wars or the like. I will leave relevant links/ quotes here and others may do with it as they wish." I am merely taking the time to try and build consensus around the article and was blocked for it. On top of that once my dissent was removed from the moderator Ad Orientem he undid my dissenting reversion only to take back his undo once I appealed my being blocked from the article. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, and it is clear to me that is exactly what this block is doing and that your disruption would resume if the block were removed. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2022 (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.

UTRS appeal #59033

is closed. I should add that continuing to press your point would probably result in you losing talk page access. --Deepfriedokra (talk) And/or further extension of your block, so please find other ways to help build Wikipedia. Best --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:TENDENTIOUS and relate it to your past edits and how you would edit moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

My block appeal was closed unfairly without my case being heard:

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/public/appeal/view?hash=860e196c5d7ea4d709759d34d746f821

I am sorry that what I am doing looks tendentious to some, it is not. Perhaps that is because others are being tendentious by gaming the system.

Three other users have given up on editing the article to stop it's bias spread of disinformation. SmolBrane clearly gave up discouraged and the user associated with IP 171.66.12.122 gave up on calling out the article's bias. And user Costatitanica just flat out said: "I share the disgust expressed by others at this blatantly biased nature of this screed of an article. I don't have patience to get into edit wars or the like. I will leave relevant links/ quotes here and others may do with it as they wish."

I am merely taking the time to try and build consensus around the article and was blocked for it. On top of that once my dissent was removed from the moderator he undid my dissenting reversion only to take back his undo once I appealed my being blocked from the article. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to "reading the room" and

WP:BLUDGEON issues, comments such as 2 Women and Children Died from the lockdown for every one that died of Covid. are obviously factually incorrect and make me question editing competence here. In fact that comment is shocking. Good block, suggest not unblocking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This was said by the WHO ex head of Malaria and Ferbile Diseases David Bell. It's not just hyperbolic words; David Bell pulls from upwards of 10 sources to make that claim including the World Bank, Unicef and many more reliable sources that takes him a long time to unpack in this interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/ex-who-official-david-bell-will-the-pandemic-treaty-make-lockdowns-a-permanent-feature-of-pandemic-response_4481770.html 65.175.199.251 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The day the truth gets me blocked on Wikipedia. I never thought it would come to this. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He explains that an extra 10 million children were forced into child marriages from the lockdown alone starting at time stamp 20:30. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:EPOCHTIMES. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I resent and am angered by the " unfairly ". You failed to address the reasons for your block and continued to edit tendentiously there. I was was polite, and explained why you were blocked. You have continued here, and are making personal attacks. You are making it clear that the partial blocks are needed to prevent disruption. Please feel free to appeal my decline at

WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Also read

wp:nothere account. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]