User talk:ControversiesEditor

Welcome!
Hi ControversiesEditor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing!

Alejandra Caraballo
First of, the section you added, gave WP:UNDUE weight to a tweet (which may have been wrong, but that does not constitute a "controversy"). Second, the tweets are, in all likelyhood, copyrighted. If not by the original author, then at least by twitter. 15:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If a claim is spread to 80M people, reported by some newspapers and treated as fact while disproved by authorities, that's the definition of a conspiracy theory.
 * Public Twitter screenshots have no copyrights. They are public. ControversiesEditor (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this is a "conspiracy theory" is not the point. The points are neutrality (in not lending undue weight to storms in a teacup) and copyright violations. Whoever the copyright holder may e, you tried to pass it off as "own work" o Commons, and issued a CC-by-SA license, which you cannot do. 15:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. For something to qualify as a "conspiracy theory". the theory needs to feature a conspiracy. Absent that, this is most certainly not one. Kleuske (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You clearly have a bias and should not be part of Wikipedia. ControversiesEditor (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would qualify as a personal attack. Don't do that. Kleuske (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding her real/dead name is not an attack. She's a public figure. All public figure have their real name public. This prove you have a bias and should not be moderating. I will report your behaviour and the removal of my unbiased section. ControversiesEditor (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You were threatening that on the TP of the article. Please keep the discussion somewhat organized. The personal attack, above, was directected at yours truly. Kleuske (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Saying you are biased and should not moderate wikipedia is a fact, not an attack. If you feel offended and hurt, find a safe place and stay there. ControversiesEditor (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that you're saying it. True. It is also a fact that it's a personal attack. Kleuske (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So, how many of you are here looking after Caraballo's page? ControversiesEditor (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Check my editing history. It's public. You'll find I look after A LOT of pages. Kleuske (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Working hard to safeguard Caraballo. ControversiesEditor (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a general notice and has nothing to do with Alejandra Caraballo specifically. Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)