User talk:Popcatalin81

TSLAQ
Your recent edits to TSLAQ violate neutral point-of-view ("allusively"), are unsupported by a reliable source (a link to a blocklist isn't one), and introduces original research (your conclusions about echo chambers). You will need to gain consensus on Talk:TSLAQ from other editors to make these changes. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Popcatalin81, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to TSLAQ does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Schazjmd  (talk)  16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

December 2019
Your recent editing history at TSLAQ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Schazjmd  (talk)  17:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''Stop making your edit about block lists to the TSLAQ entry. The matter has been discussed at length before and a consensus was reached. If you continue to make the edit, you risk being blocked.'' QRep2020 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"allusively"
What are you even trying to say by insisting on such an awkward word? The opposite of "openly" is "privately." QRep2020 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

″allusive: that contains or makes use of allusions (indirect references or hints).″

TSLAQ tries to imply that Tesla is a fraud company using indirect references or hints to mostly anecdotal evidence that is most of the time produced by other TSLAQ members Popcatalin81 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say they are pretty straightforward in conveying about how they believe Tesla engages in fraudulent activity and the referenced LA Times article states as much. QRep2020 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)