User talk:Zizek Rocks

Welcome!
Hi Zizek Rocks! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! El_C 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The 3 revert rule and edit warring
Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Zali Steggall. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This sort of thing is totally inappropriate. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for two weeks for WP:BLP violations and edit-warring at Zali Steggall; and personal attacks. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Warning. If you make a personal attack again, I will increase your block to indefinite and revoke access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked/Censored
It's not a "personal attack" when you're simply pointing out that the editor in question was sanitizing a political candidate's Wikipedia by removing primary sources of material prior to a federal election. The constant reversions that have removed primary sources have removed key facts that speak to the subjects lack of personal integrity and the sympathetic interview she was given by her advocate in the media. These reversions and the blocking of any further discussion of the matter serve to discredit Wikipedia as a source of objective information. I look forward to my appeal being dealt with in a timely and judicious manner. The further threat here is clearly outrageous and far worse than any alleged "personal attack".

Discretionary sanctions alert - Biographies of Living Persons
-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request
Just for your information, Wikipedia does not claim to be an objective source of information; Wikipedia only claims to summarize independent reliable sources with a neutral point of view. Any bias in reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia; those sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Jerome Laxale
Please mind BLP as you have been blocked for this in the past. The second half of the para doesn't seem to match your attached source Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no basis for your objection. The second paragraph is taken from the attached source. There is further no justification for removing the content, the matter has been reported in the media and is being investigated. Zizek Rocks (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)