User talk:73.206.167.225

July 2023
Hello, I'm Red Slapper. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Red Slapper (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film). 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I see what you did and why . Absolutely no basis in policy. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Oh, I'd say WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks are two policies, and your response to my warning (and even to the block) demonstrates a preventative need (WP:BLOCKP). Three policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

LOL. I see that you're protecting your friend. "Perhaps you need to spend some time working on reading comprehension skills" after your friend insulted me multiple times is worth two weeks? Your response made it clear you're violating the policy. "Blocks should not be punitive", but clearly you put in two weeks just to be punishing.

Even more hilarious you post here "please join the discussion in the section above" knowing your illegal punitive block stops me from doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASound_of_Freedom_%28film%29&diff=1164928331&oldid=1164928303

Since ToBeFree won't be honest here I'll say what I see. saw his friend making multiple personal attacks against me and mislabeled the MILDEST response from me as a "personal attack" dishonestly. ToBeFree deliberately made the block two weeks just to be punitive, followed by doing the other things trying to make me angry, I'm guessing hoping to provoke something else he can misrepresent to justify further punitive action that has no support in policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The block would be indefinite, requiring you to demonstrate an understanding of the issue illustrated again by your message, if you had done this with a registered account. Two weeks are my default IP block length, which you can confirm by having a look at the list of my blocks. The alleged friendship does not exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My role on that article and its talk page is a moderating one without the alleged personal dislike(s). I had originally fully protected the article, explained this action on the talk page on request, enforced a topic ban, removed the protection caused by a topic-banned editor, created a neutral RfC when neither side of the dispute took the minute needed to create one, and invited all then-participants of the edit war to it. I lack an opinion on the RfC's topic. I haven't been involved in a content discussion with either you or my alleged friend, whom I have warned for edit warring after blocking you. Keeping the editing and discussions in this heated debate civil isn't easy even without mud-slinging allegations of administrative abuse.
 * The IP address your repeated attack came from has been used to submit comments such as Special:Diff/1164782431, Special:Diff/1164782490 (self-undone), Special:Diff/1164785383, Special:Diff/1164784704, Special:Diff/1164784327, Special:Diff/1164786328 (edit summary), Special:Diff/1164864740, Special:Diff/1164865038, Special:Diff/1164925200 and Special:Diff/1164926917. There are two suppressed revisions with content removed by at the beginning of this user talk page's history that led to a 48-hour block before. In a nutshell, there is a history of problems, two of which are incivility and attacks, and these didn't even stop when a specific attack was removed with a warning. There is nothing else to be expected in such a situation than a block. Your response to a personal-attack block so far has been throwing further attacks around. This isn't remotely likely to achieve what an unblock request normally asks for: an unblock. The block is about your behavior, not others'. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

you should probably be aware, I'm betting you'll be ToBeFree's next bullying target since he assists Red Slapper. Also it looks like there's been more vandalism of the kind you were keeping away at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Caviezel&diff=1164947177&oldid=1164945912

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

(What on Earth. I've never sent an e-mail and my domain has strict Sender Policy Framework and DMARC rules that should result in fakes being either automatically thrown away or at least being detectable as such from their source code.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @ToBeFree: Belated note: This is SkepticsAnonymous. They do this same schtick every time. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Thanks, . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)