User talk:Keepingitabuck

May 2021
 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 below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone else will review this, but I cannot pull anyone's IP. Only checkusers can, and only under certain circumstances. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And no, this is not a negotiation, you will either address the reason for the block, or not. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Admin
Incorrect, the reason for the block has been addressed, the block violates block policy, blocking policy which was provided to me by your group.

The editor reports assertions to Admin he knows, calling me a sock and harassing. Yet my comment was solely on an article as a whole, respectful, and as a counterpoint to the prior poster on his talk page advocating locking the page. It is not harassment in any way. Admin indefinitely bans me over context erroneous to editors complaint. Why did the editor RandomCanadian editor think my assertion was harassment towards him, when I merely said in general, as a reflex to a seasoned editor that the article looked skewed? This editor interprets my generalistic comment on article quality as an attack on him, his projection -- not reality.

Turns out after several hours of reviewing why exactly this editor went ballistic on me, RandomCanadian wasn't on the fence with his edits, he has 500+ COVID-related edits, with generally a one side vantage. On review of wiki policies, you have a duty to not promote wikilawyering and bullying of new people, AGF - and I don't see that happening here. This is the editor's homepage, it's welcoming and not hostile or POV-driven at all. It is so positive that I cannot even write it in here as the filter blocks it as potentially unconstructive - it is no wonder the Daszak article is void of any critic when top neutral news publications have written about him negatively in excess of 30 times in detail since May.

Please could you explain clearly what you think are the specific issues with Peter Daszak's article, and do you have sources of information to back up those arguments? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I am failing to see how or why this question addresses the validity of the block in the first place. Here is a basic Google Search Pull, e.g. how I arrived at the page. All of them contain negative analysis which is void from the article hence my comment. This ban is not related to sourced content, and spending time asking it rather than adjudicating the specific invalid nature of the block, is questionable.

Ritchie333 Please retract your assertion that I accused an editor of whitewashing, as it is provably false. I asserted the article looked whitewashed, an article he participated in. The notion that I am supposed to trace 100-year news publicans for slant when I clearly noted it was directly from Google, is erroneous and it seemed like much more of a political check than vetting sourced journalism, which was also startling. Also, this is moot as lack of accurate season editors on this article who are not using epithets on their home page and are neutral, clearly caused readers to attempt to take a crack at editing, and this was then used in hilariously Orwellian fashion to lock the page. Thus, as such, the chilling effect will not result in me not using this account further for another decade if at all, as your team banned me for 17 days and 3 denials over a simple single sentence, and continually badgered me for links that are blatantly obvious on Google.

Good day, and I hope you follow Jimbo's guidelines and not Comic Book Guy as this was clearly a heavy-handed and absurd way to handle a new user, and it will not grow your community of editors, only cement the landed gentry and push anyone who wishes to actually contribute to either write 1000 word essays in their defense or become sock puppets.


 * If that's your attitude, then I think Drmies was right to say you are "not here to write an encyclopedia" (you have no edits in mainspace) so I am rescinding the unblock. As far as contributions, you can see a summary of what I have written on my userpage. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)