User talk:SSA SFO

August 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Teal Swan, did not appear constructive and has 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 the 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. Samf4u (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Teal Swan, you may be blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

''Do not disrupt the article again or you may be blocked from editing. Per WP:BRD begin a discussion at the article talk page.'' Eagleash (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teal Swan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Samf4u (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

. Ian.thomson is flooding Teal Swan's page with false information with the intention to slander based on his religious belief.

Stick to one account
It's obvious that you're hopping between accounts. Stop it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop being a shill
In these edits, you claimed that sources such as Vice (magazine) and The Guardian were unreliable. Claiming the Guardian is unreliable is generally a sign that one is a fake news addict.

Also, stop using "under letigation" as a reason. Wikipedia does not tolerate legal threats or anything that could be implied to be a legal threat. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation notification
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Opentruth4you. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

. Ian.thomson is flooding Teal Swan's page with false information with the intention to slander based on his religious belief.
 * It doesn't take religion to have a problem with censorship of externally documented criticism.
 * It doesn't take religion to have a problem with someone telling their followers that suicide is fine and encouraging them to visualize killing themselves.
 * It does take fanaticism for someone to look at try to justify the above problematic behaviors with accusations of fanaticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)