User talk:FlameRetardant

Welcome!
Hello, FlameRetardant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Stop Cop City did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Introduction to referencing
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What edit? FlameRetardant (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , where you claimed that the killing of Rayshard Brooks was "justified". Since you did not cite a reliable source supporting your statement, your edit was reverted. WPEditor42  ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's literally in the article Killing of Rayshard Brooks "On August 23, 2022, prosecutors announced that both officers were no longer face charges. The Special Prosecutor stated that “Based on the facts and circumstances confronting Officer Rolfe and Officer Brosnan in this case, it is my conclusion the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and that they did not act with criminal intent”." FlameRetardant (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * “Justified” is not in the source you added out to nor is a word used in the original article. And “objectively reasonable” is ambiguous. Doug Weller  talk 18:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah but the source says "objectively reasonable" so I'll put it back in with a ref later and not wikilink it. The fact is, the killing of Brooks was "objectively reasonable". --FlameRetardant (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And of course terrible. Doug Weller  talk 21:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is? --FlameRetardant (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The murder of a human being. That. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Two notifications
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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 Contentious topics.

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 Contentious topics.
 * thank you for reaching out and for bringing the biographies policy to my attention. I'm not sure how shooting a six year old girl factors into post-1992 US politics? --FlameRetardant (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The moment you inserted the suspect's race into the article, without proper verification, it became a relevant matter--I am sure I don't have to tell you that race is an important thing in modern American politics. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, the suspect and victims photographs were published by the media, but ok, thanks for the heads up. It's fair to expect then that any time the victims and suspects are of a different race, the policy applies? --FlameRetardant (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't bullshit us. "Thanks for bringing the biographies policy to my attention"? Your very first edit here had the edit summary "WP:BLP1E, WP:CFORK, DB-A7 ", and your whole editing history suggests that you are a) a sock of a blocked user, and b) here with a genuine or trolling racist agenda. Please stop wasting everybody's tome. Fram (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That was hateful and unnecessary. Facts aren't racist, and I've simply added verifiable facts. --FlameRetardant (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was neither, and is right to be suspicious of those edits. We're not talking about facts and factoids; we're talking about including facts and factoids. Here you come driving by, citing policy from the very first edit--in order to make edits that, from my point of view and I guess Fram's, simply stoke a racist little fire. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Y'all drove by. I created an article about a shooting, following as an example another article about a shooting and it's received really a strong level of backlash that I just don't understand. The race of the accused and the victim is as relevant as the age, gender, and the time of day I'm not sure why you're so upset about it. --FlameRetardant (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard
I have opened a discussion regarding your edits here. It would be prudent to state your case, perhaps. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 04:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Courcelles (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I created an article about a 6 year old White girl being shot in the face by a 24 year old black man who was out on bail having previous attacked a woman with a hammer - and you deleted the article and banned me without explanation or input. I guess. --FlameRetardant (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)