Plusultrasniper

Welcome!

Hi Plusultrasniper! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Stew Peters—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving once and for all that Wikipedia is a far-left alt-left website controlled by dictators such as yourself with a one way view of constructive. Done here, this site is lost. Plusultrasniper (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 12:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I love how you far-left Wikipedia editors know better than the MD Surgeon General of Florida, and label his views contentious, while propping up the counter narrative that favor the far-left viewpoint. For this, not only do I get blocked from editing on Wikipedia, but it proves how much Wikipedia is being controlled to deny access to anyone with a counter view that questions libel and slander. The article in question uses a far-left news source written by a person without an MD, and states that the Surgeon General of Florida with an MD is wrong for questioning the WEF and WHO. This is not science, science allows for more than 1 opinion, when you have only 1 opinion you have the basis of a cult. The wiki-cult. You have convinced me to leave Wikipedia because the responses clearly show that this website is not for editing by intelligent people.

Thanks. But someone who tried to create an article saying "Historical Events have been attributed to Bilocation and Teleportation as in the Christian New Testament where Jesus Christ is teleported to a mountaintop to be tempted by Satan" is qualified to say who is intelligent. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The Vatican has documented miracles attributed to Padre Pio and other Catholic Saint for having bilocated. Read the New Testament,Matthew 4:8 is the eighth verse of the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. Jesus has just rejected Satan's second temptation. In this verse the devil "transports" Jesus to a new location for the third temptation. You really have no credibility. 107.201.64.252 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You're the same LTA that was using this account. Not impressed. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 (2)

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 14:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller has a contentious public history on Wikipedia. A Google search shows that he has a history of bullying users universally that he disagrees with. His own personal profile page shows that his entire time on Wikipedia appears to be policing the website for anyone he disagrees with and then banning them. I think Doug Weller should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia to correct his behavior and delete his account. His entire presence on Wikipedia does not appear to be to build an Encyclopedia. Doug needs help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.144.93.70 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP! Do you have any diffs that prove this? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Check out his user page citing nothing but policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller

1. https://apalacheresearch.com/2022/06/09/banished-from-wikipedia/

2. https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6039

3. https://twitter.com/MrK00001/status/1220986798270185472

4. https://twitter.com/MrK00001/status/1144632442432688128?lang=en

5. https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6039 170.144.93.70 (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an idiot called Richard Thornton. Just realised that's funny, he's trying to be a thorn in my side. See User talk:Apalache-Research. And User talk:Talamachusee their earlier acccount. What you can't see is his deleted userpage where he self-identifies as Thornton. He's been attacking me for years. @Yuchitown and Bishonen: this may amuse you. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And to back up my suggestion he's not very smart, I assume he's referring to me having an Admin and similar dashboards on my userpage. That's hardly unusual for an Admin. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That guy again! Oh my word. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation has to contend with his craziness. Does anyone read Twitter anymore? Yuchitown (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

I am not Richard Thorton. But I did some more digging. Per Doug Weller's Wikipedia Admin statistics he has blocked 11,527 users, reblocked 233 users and modified 7 users accounts. Doug also is quoted by an ADL as self-proclaimed on the frontlines of combatting political activity: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets, clearly he is an activist. 170.144.93.70 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For someone who's been an Admin as long as I have, that's not at all unusual. 15.5 years. About 744 a year, only about 2 a day and I don't look at the vandal reporting boards or 3rr very much. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hell, I forgot. Busy day, weird stuff all over. The IP has to be the LTA that this particular editor turned out to be. See [1] The whole thread is junk.. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing good can come from keeping this page open. Lock it down and clean it up. It's just a troll magnet, time sink, and opportunity for doxing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Took it to RPP and it's been semi-protected indefinitely. Will you clean it, hat it or whatever? All the IPs are the same person who owned this account, an LTA. The account was even used to attack me on Meta - I can't read the attack as it was rev/deleted or suppressed. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Thomas K. Cullerton

Hello, Plusultrasniper. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Thomas K. Cullerton".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)