User talk:Ozone742

February 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Veronica Lueken have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Veronica Lueken was changed by Ozone742 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.887797 on 2022-02-02T01:26:55+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pachamama, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Veverve. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Veverve. You made a mistake by removing my edit on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All my edit did was clarify that Fenneyism is condemned as a heresy by the Catholic Church. Not including it would be witholding information and taking away the neutral point of view that Wikipedia is supposed to have. Thank you. Ozone742 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You called it "a condemned heresy" and also a "heresy". Those are not clarifications. The opinion the Catholic Church has on Feeneyism is already explained at length at the Feeneyism WP article. Veverve (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider "clarification" if not clarifying what the given subject is? Feeneyism is a condemned heresy. Mentioning it in this article is relevent to the subject and gives readers a quick understanding of it. Just mentioning that this fact is pointed out on another article is irrelvant. Wikipedia articles frequently include information from other articles when necessary. Which would be the case here. Ozone742 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The opinion the Catholic Chuch has on Feeneyism, imiaslavie, sola fide or any other doctrine is most of the time irrelevant outside of some specific sections in some articles, and are always the opinion of the Catholic Church and not facts. Veverve (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You think the opinion of the Catholic Church isn't relevant to a section about the Church's opinions on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? Sorry, but that's false. Ozone742 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added a more neutral wording for the EENS article. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You just added the same information I did but at the end of the paragraph. That's no different. Ozone742 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Kick rocks. 100.14.71.248 (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

I suggest you self-revert as you are about to get sanctioned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you kick rocks. You know I'm 100% in the right. Try following Wikipedia's polciies sometime instead of threatening people for making important edits. Ozone742 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Care to actually explain what I did wrong here? Is it not Wikipedia's policy for admins to actually explain something before threatening people? Ozone742 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Ozone742 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your failure to actually engage with me on this topic is your own bud. Ozone742 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried. You were warned. You told us to "kick rocks". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No you didn't. The only dialogue anyone exchanged with me was that I was wrong (unsubstantiated), that this is a settled topic (clearly false), and then threatening me (egregious). People like you make this place toxic. Ozone742 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Tim Walz. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see Wikipedia admins still don't follow their own guidelines Ozone742 (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Unblock 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).

Ozone742 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for one week for allegedly edit warring on Tim Walz's page. First, I honestly was not aware of the 3 revert "rule" until after I had made the fourth one. Neither of the admins who were contacting me actually informed me of this "rule" but instead simply threatened me with sanctions while also refusing to engage in dialogue. Bottom line, I was trying to make a justifiable edit for an important point on a page, and I recieved next to no good faith dialogue in doing so. Both admins who contacted me simply said I was wrong without substantiation despite me attempting to engage in dialogue, or lied and said the topic was settled when it clearly wasn't. Honestly I couldn't care less if I'm unable to edit for one week since I barely do it to begin with, but I'd rather at least see if somebody working for Wikipedia can not act toxic for once. Thanks.Ozone742 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were properly warned about your edit warring; you persisted; you've been blocked. It's really not hard to understand. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:58, 19 September 2024 (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.

Ozone742 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

Ozone742 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello again. I'd appreciate if someone level headed and hopefully not pretentious could look over my situation. As I said, I don't deny making 4 reverts, but I wasn't properly informed and so just took the "warnings" as threats of abuse, and was dealing with other editors and admins who could arguably be guilty of vandalism. I was attempting to be reasonable and actually dialogue. I even tried to go along with another editors revision of the infobox rank. Oh well I guess. Thanks.Ozone742 (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you misinterpreted the warnings, that frankly is not our problem. As the warnings state, policies are enforced more strictly in formally designated contentious topic areas, like post-1992 American politics. You also indicate that you don't really have any plans to make edits, if that's true, then this block doesn't really affect you anyway. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2024 (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.

Unblock 3

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).

Ozone742 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'll give this one more shot. Last admin's response was inadequate yet again. I don't see how other admins failing to do their jobs is apparently "not your problem." I didn't misinterpret warnings. Two admins who were openly dismissive towards me threatened me for disagreeing with them, and said I'd be sanctioned after using a stock warning message that didn't explain the 3 revert "rule." Before you say, "Don't talk about other people. Talk about your own behavior," I already did. I attempted dialogue on the issue that led to this. The two admins jumped straight over dialogue to dismiss and sanction. Matter of fact, the warning doesn't even say anything about a 3 revert "rule." It says that edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts, and recommends using the talk page to discuss the matter. Which I did. So why am I blocked for following the rules exactly? Frankly, I don't expect to be unblocked, but like I said, it's worth it to see if any Wikipedia admins actually have integrity. Have a good day.Ozone742 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your appeal is based on the notion that the block was wrong. It wasn't.

If you want to submit an acceptable appeal you need to focus on why the block is no longer preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. (WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE)

I'd suggest you touch on : No edit warring (the 3 revert rule is just the bright-line implementation of this), following the accepted process WP:BRD, no inserting your opinion into articles (WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE), "play the ball and not the man",... Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2024 (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.

November 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

On the Tim_Walz article talk page you have made several less than civil responses to multiple editors:

• “Alright. I'm not going to continuing talking about this with someone acting in bad faith.”
• “You're just being disingenuous again.”
• “Hypocrisy isn't a good look. “
• "I dont know why this is so hard for certain people to grasp."
• “You repeated the same lie about Wikipedia's standard for rank in infoboxes.”
• “Grow up and actually engage with what I'm saying.”

I have not added the cites here as due to your small number of edits I am not posting this to an administrative board. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. You might also read WP:1AM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep this blunt for you bud. I have more concern for the bacteria that die on my hands when I use hand sanitizer than I do for your opinions right now. You have continuously acted in bad faith since we first started talking, and your pretentious attitude has only made it worse. I don't care if you think I'm acting uncivil because frankly, you have, and trying to twist this around on me is laughable. I'll reiterate what I said a while back. Kick rocks.

Have a nice day or something. Ozone742 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

January 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gay agenda. 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. bonadea contributions talk 06:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Please explain what was disruptive about my edits. Ozone742 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Your recent editing history at Gay agenda 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. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

So this is incredibly hypocritical of you to keep reverting the page to your inappropriate version, without discussion, and then accuse me of edit warring like this. Fix yourself. Ozone742 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder to you in case you haven't been paying attention (again), but you have also made 3 reverts on this page in the past 24 hours. Given your failure to act civil in the talk page and actually try to engage in discussion, you are certainly just as guilty of edit warring as me. Ozone742 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to start a report at WP:AN/EW then. I'd like to see you explain why you think your own idiosyncratic understanding of terms like "disparage" is grounds for reverting multiple other users and pushing a WP:1AM dispute on the talk page.

Your complaints of WP:INCIVILITY are frankly laughable in the face of your own comments like I have more concern for the bacteria that die on my hands when I use hand sanitizer than I do for your opinions right now and telling other users to kick rocks.

You've been blocked before for edit warring. Continuing this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is likely to result in a much longer block. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather not waste my time trying to figure out the complicated manner in which it takes to report you for your obvious incivility.

Please feel free to explain what's idiosyncratic about using the dictionary definition of "disparage."

Reverting two people is not ground for accusing someone of being involved in a "one against many" situation. I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with these terms before using them. Otherwise you're engaged in this since you've already reverted two people on this page.

Me insulting other editors on my personal talk page for acting inappropriate isn't uncivil. You doing so on a talk page for an article is. This isn't rocket science bud.

Yes, I've been blocked before for alleged edit warring. Is that supposed to excuse your current edit warring and borderline vandalism? Ozone742 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Your initial edit at 04:29, 31 January 2025 (removing the word "disparaging") counts as a revert. You then reverted a second editor at 22:15 and then a third (me) at 14:08 and 18:52, 1 February 2025. Three is more than two. I also count at least three editors on the article talk page (including me) supporting the use of the term "disparage". So far, you are the only user objecting to the term, hence "one against many". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, your claim that I reverted you without discussion is false. I have consistently explained my reasoning at Talk:Gay agenda § Lead description and specifically pinged you after reverting you the first time. Please strike your inaccurate comment. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 21:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You clearly learned nothing from your prior block and your conduct at Gay agenda and with other editors is not acceptable nor is it conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Star Mississippi 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)