User talk:Razgriz920

Unblock for voicing an unpopular opinion

Declined. If you were really here to build an encyclopedia, you'd try to understand how you screwed up and seek to collaborate instead of grandstanding as if certainty was identical to correctness. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined unblock notices stay in place until a successful unblock request occurs. Alternatively, we could revoke your talk page access; would that be preferable? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion, it just summarizes reliable sources. Arguing that you were blocked for voicing any opinion (popular or unpopular) rather does demonstrate that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Again, if you want to demonstrate that you are here, you need to show that you want to learn how to collaborate. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not the one Silencing people cause of an unpopular opinion. I stated that that problem was long before trump and I simply removed an opinion piece. And next you know people with TDS come out of the wood work. It’s unpopular cause it would mean that America has problems for years and that the last 8 presidents didn’t do anything.

Only Trump supporters use the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" unironically, and no centrist worth listening to would say that the last 8 presidents accomplished nothing. I already explained that Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion, and your response to that was to try to defend the merit of your opinion as if that's relevant or matters -- talk page access revoked. If you ever recover from your own intellectual dishonesty, you can try following the instructions at WP:UTRS. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Razgriz920, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United States, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. freshacconci (✉) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do it as I see fit There was a reason. The Guardian is a well know Far left leaning propaganda and should not be used as a source. I could do the same with the Obama Administration with fat right leaning Sources. This is supposed to be a page about facts, not anti-America propaganda. Razgriz920 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{[[User talk:}