User talk:Foxyalpha27

November 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to OpIndia, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * On controversial right-wing figures in USA and across Europe, to news portals with misinformation like The Wire(which got humiliated by Meta), all get neutral wording but 'OpIndia' which published 1 controversial article(which it later gave clarification to), gets scrutiny and negative framing with no alternate perspective.
 * (The alleged misinformation by OpIndia on the Gopalganj case was supported by the testimony of the victim's father, which was withdrawn after further investigation by the police.) Foxyalpha27 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Vandalising an article even if you undid your edits is a bad way to rush to get auto-confirmed
Doug Weller talk 20:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ... was simply testing edits. 10 edits almost a month ago is not something anyone would be desperate to achieve just to get autoconfirmation.
 * Wierd that only after editing a controversial news portal 'OpIndia' the account gets scrutinized, clearly a political inclination or bias of sorts is displayed here. Foxyalpha27 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked
You have gamed our autoconfirmed system with your edits to Spoken language, and then used your autoconfirmed status to edit a semiprotected article, OpIndia. You have been blocked for a week for gaming the system. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing  on this page. Oh, and whose sock are you, please? Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC).


 * I was simply testing edits, 10 edits almost a month ago is not something anyone would be desperate to achieve just to get autoconfirmation.
 * Wierd that only after editing a controversial news portal 'OpIndia' the account gets scrutinized, clearly a political inclination or bias of sorts is displayed here.
 * On controversial right-wing figures in USA and across Europe, to news portals with misinformation like The Wire(which got humiliated by Meta), all get neutral wording but 'OpIndia' which published 1 controversial article(which it later gave clarification to), gets scrutiny and negative framing with no alternate perspective.
 * I'm your m0m's sockpupet u lil sh't. Foxyalpha27 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to the despicable remark directly above, your block is now indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
 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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org 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. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)